Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Wouldn't it be more fair to....

Posted 2 years ago on April 12, 2012, 12:54 a.m. EST by toonces (-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

... lower taxes on the 99% to the rate millionaires pay instead of raising taxes on the income of the rich? Wouldn't that help more people that raising taxes on 1% of the population? Wouldn't letting people keep more of the money they earn help them more than taking more money from others?

274 Comments

274 Comments


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

How about a progressive tax system? All tax is based on income, anything over a limit of 500,000 or a million dollars in a year, is taxed 90%, the "Your Winning!" rate.
This limits wealth concentration, and still leaves something for those that think people only strive for cash rewards, (something I know to be untrue, but whatever).

No tax on the first $25,000, 5% to 100,000, 9% to 300,000, 23% to the winning level,. (what ever it is) all income over 500,000 at 90%

if you make less than 25,000 pay 0%. You keep it all.

if you make 100,000 the first 25,000 is tax free, the next 75,000 is taxed at 5% etc.

So if you make 500,000 you keep; 25,000 + 68,250 + 182,000 + 154,000 = $429,250

Income includes capital gains! The numbers are just spitballs, but it is the principle that I like.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

That's similar to the tax code of the 1950's - which were BTW, the best of times for middle America.

[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

I strongly support 90% taxation beyond a certain limit, because you only need so much money to live a comfortable life.

But a person should have the option of either paying taxes or donating to some private charity, so that if the government is corrupt the person is not forced to fund it.

[Removed]

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

Ah 90% for anything upwards of 500,000? Great. So say I am an entrepreneur who gives up his job to start his own company, then work for 18 hours a day for 4 years to get my company up and running and now we are bought for say $100 million. I owned 20% of the company and so I get $20 millon. But according to your idea, all I make is $2.45 million. The rest of my $20 million goes to tax and is used to fund unwanted wars, clean up parks littered by occutard hippies, pay for social security for that stupid 18 year old teenager who has a kid, for that alcoholic who can't keep a job etc.

Great then.

Why are you so jealous of other's success that you that you will try everything to part them from the fruits of their success, anything short of outright stealing it from them. Dude, improve your own life instead of resenting about others'

[-] 3 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I know, right? Who cares about other people. Just send them all to the incinerators. That'll teach them to be poor!

Seriously, nearly 2.5 million dollars is just not enough money! I can only buy ONE mansion, two Cadillacs and a full-time Mexican to do my chores for me! Man, my life is going to be TERRIBLE now that I can't switch out my luxury sedans based on what day of the week it is. Boo hoo hoo :(

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

Caring about other people and not owning the fruits of one own labor are two very different things. If you want then go ahead and donate 90% of your income to the poor. Charity, after all, begins at home. The poor aren't poor because someone else is rich. Seriously man, where do you guys get this strong dose of self righteousness from? Others should pay for this and that. But wtf are your doing? It is easy to thrust responsibility on others. Walk the talk mate. Try that

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

"The poor aren't poor because someone else is rich" Really?

Sure they are; we live on a finite planet, you know one with a limited amount of matter and space. Yet a few people claim to own the majority of the resources and the space? Why is that? Are they smarter, do they work really hard every day to maintain these fortunes? No the system skims from the masses to keep some wealthy, we aim to change that.

If the poor did not have to pay rent to the landowners who are rich, if they could utilize the resources of the planet like the rich, then they would not be so poor,.. clearly the rich maintain a tilted table, a rigged game, so they can maintain their greedy wealth.

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

Yes, we live in a finite planet but we are nowhere close to utilizing all it's resources. Wealth creation does not stop because there are other wealthy people.

And how does the 'system' skims from the masses? Are you paying to enrich Gates and Zuckerberg etc? They built products and made money from it, fair and square. Are they taxing you? On the contrary the top 1% pays a much larger share of income tax.

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

Right. People that are struggling to make ends meet should really stop buying that food. So they can pay their "share" of taxes.

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

Money is created from debt, by private for-profit banks, they create the principle but not the interest, however they require the borrower to pay back this interest too. This is the main source of inflation, as the un-created money can only be generated by more debt creating,. this is a feedback loop, or a pyramid scheme. As without new debt the system fails, as we are seeing. This is also the reason people are forced to 'invest' their retirement money to tray to stay 'ahead of inflation', something that is not needed if we base or monetary system on value and not debt, and stop letting the 1% run a casino with our savings. The monetary system itself is flawed, and we are now reaping the deficits of these flaws.

There are as many possible monetary systems as people to dream them up,. and no reason to stick with a broken system. especially given the corruption in this outdated broken system.

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

Yeah, you theory is wrong. The whole thing about the interest not getting created, thats wrong. If only I had a nickel every time someone said this. Read a macro econ book.

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

ok, who creates the interest? back your objections up, I gave you a rational, you say it is 'wrong' but provide no answer.

this short video may help; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU or this essay; http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5615

and thanks for being stubborn! as a quick web search just found me this; http://www.monetaryreform.com/ lov it! More great ideas from an enlightened human,. .

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

Yes I have seen those short videos. Sadly, I prefer to get my knowledge from peer reviewed textbooks, journals and research papers. As to who creates the interest, again read a good macroecon book. Should answer all your doubts. this space is too little for me to add illustrations and write all that.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Which papers? Which textbooks, and on which pages?

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

You can start with mankiw's introductory book on macro econ.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

This comment is sheer mind fuck.

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

Yes I can understand. Frankly, when did this country start producing whiners like you who think the whole think the whole universe is conspiring against them.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

If I made $20 million last year than I would donate 90% of it to the poor, no problem. Unlike people like you, I am not blinded by greed. I have enough of a conscience to want people other than myself to lead decent lives. You would rather see them starve than help them out. People like you are heartless and cruel, and the world would be a better place without you.

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

The key word here is 'if'. Did you make $20 million last year? If not, the shut up ur phony generosity. It is easy to promise to give away something you never had and never will have.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

So I win this thread then? Since you have nothing left but personal attacks?

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

And you have nothing to left but hollow self righteous nonsense? If you are such an angel on earth, go to Africa and help poor kids there. Don't sit on your ass in one of the most developed country in the world which provides such a fine cover of social security.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

So caring about people = "self righteous nonsense?"

I'll take that over your unrelenting greed any day, Mr. Scrooge.

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

No, claiming that you will given all of your notional $2 million (money that you don't have and never will have) away is self righteous nonsense. And I am not the greedy one here, I am not asking for handouts from the rich and blaming my misfortune on some else's fortune.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I don't have misfortune. I am very successful actually. You don't know anything about me. What makes you think that because I care about people that I'm automatically "one of them?"

Did your shit-for-brains parents forget to teach you about compassion? I guess you forgot to pay attention in Sunday school, eh? What a dolt.

You are definitely greedy. You are the one who is asking for more tax breaks. That's asking for money from the poor. The poor cover the cost of that tax break when their medicare gets cut or their public education funds are slashed and teachers are laid off.

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

My parents taught me to work hard for everything and I have. They taught me not to expect handouts. And when exactly was I asking for tax breaks, dumbass? And my parents taught me enough to not insult others' parents.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

And asking for lower taxes isn't asking for a handout because...?

The whole point of this thread is taxes. How much is fair. You're whole point is that you are somehow "better" than everyone else, so ergo you "deserve" an even lower tax rate than what you get.

I don't want any handouts. I pay my taxes, and I think I need to be charged more. I want YOU to pay your fair share of taxes as well.

Did you not post this 22 hours ago?

"Ah 90% for anything upwards of 500,000? Great. So say I am an entrepreneur who gives up his job to start his own company, then work for 18 hours a day for 4 years to get my company up and running and now we are bought for say $100 million. I owned 20% of the company and so I get $20 millon. But according to your idea, all I make is $2.45 million. The rest of my $20 million goes to tax and is used to fund unwanted wars, clean up parks littered by occutard hippies, pay for social security for that stupid 18 year old teenager who has a kid, for that alcoholic who can't keep a job etc.

Great then.

Why are you so jealous of other's success that you that you will try everything to part them from the fruits of their success, anything short of outright stealing it from them. Dude, improve your own life instead of resenting about others'"

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

I am sure there is a middle ground between your atrocious and greedy proposal of 90% tax and 0% tax. I am actually fine with the way taxes are now. I might even survive with a 50% top tax rate (like in UK where I worked for a year).

As for what is a 'fair share' of tax, that's open to debate. Parasites like you want to take money away from the rich simply because you cant be rich. People like me want a balance between both.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well then absofuckinlutely awesome. Here's a chance for you to start working for that balance by supporting fair taxation of the rich. You can start by supporting the Buffet rule. Then you can support OSTA, Corporations are not people, money out of politics, removal of conflict of interest from our legal process. So many things so little time.

Plenty of petitions exist on line and on this forum. Get busy.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I will be rich, and I will be firmly on Buffet's side in the tax break debate, because paying more taxes is what is best for this country. The rich are the parasites. There are millions of dollars that are lost in revenue thanks to the tax breaks that the poor fund for the rich. That's not fair.

I think 90% is a bit much for a $500,000 income. I do think that 90% is worth implementing at $50 or $100 million, and maybe 50% for $500,000 - $1 million. That's fair.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Who the hell do you think donate entire wings to children's hospitals, to cultural arts centers, to new schools at universities, to medical research, to churches, etc. It is the rich, and almost exclusively the rich. Why? Because they have the money to do so and they care. I live around a lot of rich people, some are my friends, even though I am not particularly "rich". I got an invitation today to a friend's 50th birthday party, and in lieu of any gifts, it asked for everyone to bring a bag full of food for donation, they wanted at least 100 bags of food. This is the type of stuff done every day across America in "wealthy" neighborhoods, and not so wealthy neighborhoods. It is the reason the Red Cross and the United Way, the Komen Foundation, the Catholic Church, et al are able to continue in their missions. I never see or hear anyone on the left acknowledge any good that the "rich" do, never. It's just, "Yea, that's great, keep it up, and PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE"! Disgusting.

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

It takes a high level of maturity and a fair amount of real life experience to understand what you are saying. OWS operates on theories and beliefs; rarely on facts. It is so much simpler to blame all of life's ills on "the rich" rather than to actually expect people to take responsibility for their own actions.

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

In fact, the top marginal rates in this country used to be in excess of 90%, and not only did no harm, but was in effect at the time of the largest and most sustained economic expansion in US - indeed world - history. That's not theory, but fact.

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

Get your facts right dude. The economic expansion is US did not happen because of taxation, if you read any econ book you would know that. Don't confuse causation with correlation.

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

No, it didn't happen because of taxation (though it helped a great deal). But it gives lie to the assertion that it hurts economic growth and prosperity. And the beneficial effects for the country as a whole are completely dismissed by anti-tax zealots.

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

How did 'it help a great deal'? Could you explain. I am not saying there should be zero taxes but a 90% tax rate is a joke. If you criticize anti-tax zealot, then you are a tax zealot. And both of you (or rather OWS) are greedy.

Besides, the current problem with the country is overspending (which caused the debt) and low savings (which is why we needed the debt) coupled with the 2008 mortgage crisis.

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

The country is NOT overspending. It is currently spending too little, especially in terms of job creation. It IS spending too much on the military and subsidies for oil companies, though.

The higher tax bracket worked in the past. I have explained how in this thread. I will not repeat it simply because you didn't read through the whole thread before commenting.

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

Okay now you either delusional or misinformed. There is something called budget deficit, and this country has been running a deficit since I don't know when. I hope you know what a budget deficit is?

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

And the way to lower the long term debt without draconian measures to the poor is to eliminate the tax breaks for the wealthy and broaden the tax base by investing heavily in job creation.

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

We can agree to disagree

[Removed]

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

My question is, where does that extra money go that the "wealthy" person would have made if he weren't taxed at 90%. I mean, seriously, if you were going to make 10% on every dollar over $500,000, unless you could make it without working any harder, why do you think anyone would do it? They wouldn't, and that value would be taken out of the economy, the value that would have bought that luxury sedan that would have employed a car salesman, a car dealership, mechanics, and the auto manufacturer and parts suppliers, gone. Think about it. It's like telling your teenager they can wash cars to make extra money and they'll make $10 a car for the first 10 cars, but only a dollar a car after that. Think they'll stop at 10?

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

people making over half a million dollars a year are not washing cars, or assembling widgets.

There are many other motivations of people to do anything, than only ever 'what does it earn me'. This is exactly the point; in a system that only accounts for profits, that only cares about profits, people are given rather destructive motivations. The aim is to flip that and devise a system that motivates people to do what actually benefits the planet, and all the people on it. Why should we cling to a system that strips wealth from the many, for the benefit of the tinny few, when we can simply devise a system that keeps everyone afloat, and still allows some to rise quite high. A system that aims to improve the abundance of all life on the planet and even into space, how can you argue for the old system, we all have experienced what it brings.

[-] -2 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

A dreamer. You are going against the historical tide of human nature, and it's pull is pretty strong. How do you "motivate" people do do what's good for the planet and everyone else? In this system, you'll just have more people do less work because they look around them and see others just going along to get along, not putting forth the effort, and still benefitting. So, human nature dictates that they will curtail their own efforts because doing so benefits them, or rather not doing so doesn't benefit them. People who make over half a million dollars a year didn't usually just magically start making that kind of money. You'd like to erase the years before when they went to medical school or into debt for law school, or went bankrupt a couple of times with previous failed ventures before becoming successful, or spent years being a travelling salesman and staying in cheap motels away from their families so they could get ahead. Some people choose to sacrifice a gret deal in order to not necessarily have a great life for themselves (although they would like to at some point), but to let their heirs have it easier than they did. I don't see anything wrong with that and don't think their efforts should just be erased from history for someone's idea of what is beneficial to the planet or the stars. Most all of these folks don't "strip" a goddamned thing from anyone, much less many. They provide a service or a product at a price that people will pay, and they're good or efficient or smart enough to do it well enough that they make a lot of money.

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

HIstory shows that 90% top marginal rates and high inheritance taxes had no detrimental effect on either the economy of steady gains in productivity. Indeed, the period of 90% top marginal rates happened to coincide with the largest and most sustained economic growth in the nation's history. So you can talk all you want about theories of human nature and motivation; history does not support your contention.

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

No one paid 90% taxes and history is not static. Conditions change. How many illegal aliens were here in the 60's and 70's? How many baby boomers? Was there a globalized economy? You just simply do not have an ability to grasp that some have a different idea of how they'd like to live, how they'd like to work, who they associate with, who they don't, in other words, freedom. Your view is the only one that seeks to yoke someone to the government, that requires force.

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

You were the one who brought up history, ("the historical tide", "the years before") not me. You can't legitimately then turn around and say that history has no relevance because things have changed. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

No one paid 90% taxes because that was the top MARGINAL rate, not the top effective rate. Do you know what a marginal rate is? The top MARGINAL rate is now 36%. You really believe that is has no effect on who pays what? In 1960, corporate taxes represented 4% of GDP. Today it is 2%. Since taxes overall have remained more of less steady at 19% of GDP, who do you think has been forced to make up the difference in both marginal income tax reductions and corporate tax reductions? It has been the middle class.

The redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom of the last 40 years has not been created by that shift in taxes alone, but that change has indeed been a major contributor. That redistribution has occurred specifically due to the increased Libertardian policies of both parties since Reagan. And the result of those Libertardian policies is that your beloved mythical traveling salesman can no longer have a secure job, no longer has a defined pension, is saddled with debt, and will retire in near poverty, while his heirs are left no better of, in fact they will be worst off, they he was. Intergenerational economic mobility has gone the way of the Dodo bird. The US ranks at the very bottom of developed nations in that regard. Today, if you are born poor, you will most likely stay poor, and so will your children and children's children. And that is a direct result of the avarice of the wealthy and the flaws inherent in capitalism itself.

The historical tide of the last 40 years has been greater inequality, less wealth for the majority, more wealth for the very few. It is not a trend that encourages anything other than curtailing ones efforts, since those efforts don't translate in to gains, but but only towards sinking more slowly, if one is lucky. What's more, other nations, like those in Scandinavia, for example, have done much better for its people with far more regulation of incomes. Their populations are no less motivated to work to succeed than ours are, and are in fact a whole lot more successful in a range of things in what makes life good than we are. your assessment of human motivations and their results is based on mythology, not the actual world, on Ayn Rand novels, not economic or sociological realities.

[-] -2 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Sorry, the world has changed, not as much for me, but for a lot of people, it won't ever be going back. You see, I look at it from a very different perspective. I listen to people talk of secure jobs, defined benefits, employer paid health care as an entitlement, or that "if you are born poor, you will most likely stay poor" and I just laugh. I am almost 50 years old and haven't received a regular paycheck since I was in high school. I have worked in commissioned sales since I was 22, have 3 kids, two of whom are in college, and am the only one contributing to my pension plan and I pay 100% of my family's health insurance premiums in the individual market. I watch the union reps go to war up in Wisconsin over paying for part of their healthcare benefits or retirements and literally cannot believe what I am seeing. They want others to take responsibility for the investment returns of their retirement accounts (defined benefit plans, which are part of what is bankrupting us). They want no responsibility. The old model of American industry is GONE, where you go and put in your time, get protected by your union, punch the clock for 30 or 40 years, and then collect. It.....is......gone. We can't afford it any longer. My own father-in-law worked for the government and collects 90% of his ending salary, which was about $80,000/year for the rest of his life along with health benefits. He retired at 55 and started work there when he was 22. I don't know for sure, but his average salary was probably more in the $40-50k range for the entire length of his stay, let's just say it was $50k. Let's assume there was 10% of his salary put away as retirement a year. He would have contributed $165,000 over the course of his career. The $72,000 he gets is the equivalent of earning a 5% dividend on a $1.44 million retirement account. There is no way the government earned this kind of a return on the money that went into it, so in essence, the government (i.e. us taxpayers) is subsidizing his retirement. Good for him, bad for the taxpayers. How can you not see this? The thing is, it's someone else's problem (i.e. the taxpayers'), so no one cares. Well, I think we're all waking up and smelling the coffee. Someone has to pay for all of this shit, every last fucking dime of it, and it's time to realize that we each have a responsibility to both pay taxes, to earn and provide for ourselves as best we can, and to conserve.

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

It SHOULD be the taxpayers subsidizing your father-in-law's retirement: he worked for them his whole life. (I say that despite your complete distortion about how how fixed benefits are funded.)

The fact that you had to contribute 100% toward your retirement, 100% toward your healthcare, and left your employer off the hook entirely, including the entire commission/draw structure of your job, only means the you got screwed. And now yo want to make sure other gat screwed, too. In psychology, that's called the Sophomore Syndrome. Some people never outgrow it.

And in all your statement, you fail to acknowledge the fact that other systems in the world are not only working well, but far better. You are the one stuck in a limited time capsule paradigm of false choices.

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

It is you who are confused. His retirement should be based on the money that is put into a retirement account, the earnings that that amount of money accrue over time, and the yields that can be had at the time of withdrawal of the retirement funds, nothing more, nothing less, except with a minimum like social security. Working there his whole life had nothing to do with it. That's just an attempt to inject emotion into it. I have in now way gotten screwed as you suggest. I have had the benefit of freedom, freedom to come and go as I wish, set my own hours, work as hard or as little as I wanted, take off when I wanted to, not work under the lash of the slavemaster, as it were. In return, I took responsibility for many things that you simply see as someone's "right". I don't want people to "get screwed", because they're not getting screwed. I want people to wake up and realize that they are responsible for their own lives. They can teach their children either to be responsible or that they can participate in the "victim" society, where every failing in their lives is caused by someone else. I fail to understand why my employer (even though I don't have one) should be responsible for my health care premiums or retirement account. I could care less how other "systems" in the world work. You constantly hear liberals yearn for the systems of the great European nations, yet almost none choose to go live there. America is partly great because we don't follow the crowd, we don't succumb to groupthink, even as a portion of our population would have us do so.

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

America is not great when it comes to insuring the basic needs of the majority of its people. We are the ONLY country in the developed world that has no universal health care system. We are among the very worst when it come to unemployment benefits, retirement, help for the poor and disabled, and a host of other issues. It is about time we ended our bullshit "our team is the best" football mentality and joined the rest of the world in terms of being human.

Yes, I am injecting emotion into it. Fairness and justice are both emotion-based. If someone works for an employer his entire working life, that employer, whether public or private, who received the value of that labor should pay for that person's relative comfort in retirement. And, despite your false contention, most pension plans are fully funded and require no further "supplement" by taxpayers. It is not the current pension funds that are in serious trouble, but their futures. Those experiencing difficulty now is largely the result of the markets going south for a while because of a Wall street and Banker created economic crash, not because of any unfair burden placed upon taxpayers by unions.

When you employer made sure that you had to provide not only for your future needs, but your entire family's ongoing medical ones while making many times the profit off of your labor than you did, you got screwed, though you are too dumb to know it. If you enjoyed the feeling of that, it is your business. But to say others must like bending over as much as you, or that others even have the same opportunity succeed as you may or may not have done is myopic to the point of narcissism.

When 1% of the population owns 43% of the capital, when the wealth of top 400 people equals the total wealth of the bottom 150,000,000 people, when 50% of the entire population is living at or near the poverty level, when 27% of the CHILDRE - who can make no decisions for themselves - are food-insecure, your contention that no one is getting screwed reads as the complete bullshit it is.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/16

I would agree that ideally you employer should not be responsible for your health care, and that we should join the rest of the world by making the government responsible for it. With 50,000,000 people unable to get access because of insurance company greed and a flawed employer-based system, single payer government provided insurance is the only way to go.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

I might agree with you partially on healthcare because I am one in the individual market and am basically worried about catastrophic costs for injuries or illnesses that obviously almost no one can afford. I can afford a $5,000 deductible, because it has a definitive downside cost, even if I had to finance it with medical providers. As a consequence, I use as little medical care as I possibly can because I know I'm going to be responsible for the first $5k of it. If it's "free", people ask no questions. I ask blunt questsions and am generally combative every time I go to a doctor. I know they get paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to recommend certain drugs, so I ask for generic or even the real need to have certain ones prescribed in the first place. I ask about cash payment rather than insurance to seee what price differential there is. Bottom line, I try to not add to the cost of the system unless I absolutel y need it. But you are right, we need some type of protection. We just differ in outlooks. I think an employer pays a person a salary to do a job and pays for the value of the labor each year that a person works and doesn't "owe" anyone beyond the time they work for them. I would rather have a bit higher pay and invest money as I see fit for my own retirement, whether it is saving to buy a piece of rental property, investing in treasuries, or letting it ride in the stock market. I understand that it's the future retirements that are the issue. That is why the rules are being changed. The rules of economics don't change because someone works for the government and they can just print money. Private companies are even realizing that they can't fund defined benefit plans, or that they'll have to get a lot of additional contribution from the employee to be able to earn safe yields that will pay the benefits. It is doable, but you can't pay $100k/year retirements to individuals who made $50k while working. You can't invest that money in something safe enough and also produce a return that will net you the money to pay the benefit. Finally, I am and have always been an independent contractor. That means you don't technically have an employer, although you might function as one for a company. The company has a cost basis to supply you with certain things such as an office, phone, secretarial help, etc., otherwise known as a "desk cost". That is the money they need to make on their side of the ledger after paying you to break even. They don't tell you what to do, they pay these bills, and you have an arms-length relationship, meaning if they don't think they are benefitting by having you associated with them, they can disassociate themselves from you, or in your parland, "fire" you. It is up to you to negotiate a "split" on revenue that you feel is achievable and that will enable you to pay your bills, healthcare, retirement, etc. It is quite liberating, although stressful sometimes to be in charge of your life. What I am saying, though, is that this model of doing business is going to become more of the norm, and people should plan accordingly and negotiate higher salaries, learn about investing, make sure their children go to school and are motivated to learn. Otherwise, they'll always be at the mercy of someone else, whether it be the government or an employer. I think we have something like 99 weeks of unemployment. How many would you like? Why not tie unemployment to job training. Don't just cast them out, but make sure they're getting trained to do a job so they can reenter the workforce. Do what makes sense.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago
[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Sparky, what is this supposed to prove. Even the note below the chart notes that some things were "ignored" like a MAXIMUM tax rate of 50% on earned income even when the marginal rate was 70%. Big deal. Figures lie and liars figure.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

You are entitled to your own opinions; but not your made up "facts". A blatant attempt to re-write history.

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

Read the notation, Sparky. You sent the link. I just read it.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Exactly. $499,999.99 is more than enough money for a comfortable lifestyle.

Why does any one person on this planet "need" more than that? Food, water, clothing, and shelter will be easily paid for with that much money, and there will be plenty left over to buy nice suits, a new car, a nice home, etc.

"Who the hell do you think donate entire wings to children's hospitals, to cultural arts centers, to new schools at universities, to medical research, to churches, etc. It is the rich, and almost exclusively the rich. Why? Because they have the money to do so and they care. I live around a lot of rich people, some are my friends, even though I am not particularly "rich". I got an invitation today to a friend's 50th birthday party, and in lieu of any gifts, it asked for everyone to bring a bag full of food for donation, they wanted at least 100 bags of food."

Good for them. I'm not going to attack Bill Gates for that reason. Not every single person with obscene wealth does this, however. A lot of people hide their money in Swiss bank accounts, some spend it all on expensive toys, and some even built amusement parks while dangling babies off of balconies. I'm just saying: nobody's perfect.

Instead of hoping that the rich will be generous out of the goodness of their hearts, instead I would rather have them pay a fair share of taxes in the first place, so that we can fund job training and government works programs to get people back to work, get them out of the welfare trap, and back to being tax-paying members of society. I would use that extra revenue to cut the debt while providing more support for small businesses and start-ups. If you believe in the American Dream, then you will agree that this is a smart use of government funds, NOT throwing the money away with lavish tax breaks and wars that we can't afford.

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

I have already elsewhere in this forum given particular instances of how government absolutely squanders EXISTING resources. Are there savings to be had in military spending. Absolutely, and I'm for a much tightened up military, but I realize that there are "constituencies" literally everywhere that buck against this. There are million of middle class Americans' jobs that are literally on the line when you talk about cutting bases, or particular programs. It is another conundrum because you don't want to see some shipyard parts supplier go belly up and lay off all their employees in the northeast because they decide to cut the number of ships they build (just as an example). You are quite right that no one "needs" to have more than $500,000. I can't think of literally anywhere that you couldn't live pretty decently on that amount of money. But in taxes alone, between federal, state, and local sales (etc) taxes you're looking at 50% of this amount, which leaves $250,000 for all of your expenses. The market for high end good of all kinds would crash and the makers of all of those goods, from marble and granite, luxury cars, boats, hotels, etc. would lay off many people because there literally wouldn't be enough income to be able to afford much of it. Yes, there would be some exceptions, always exceptions, much like in your example of there being some people who do not give to charity and just hoard all of their wealth. This is the very small exception. Just know that with a $500k income cap, or 90% tax rates, you would have NO new wings built for children's hospitals, people would be trying to preseve the wealth that they already had before the new "law" came into being, so they would cut their donations, knowing they couldn't make this money back up in the future because of the new law. That's how this stuff starts, what you think is a good and noble cause just leads to consequences you don't even contemplate, but is very real if you just put yourself in the shoes of the person this law affects and what YOU would do in their place. Many will claim altruism because of course, it is not reality to them and it is will never be reality to them so they can just say they'd be a better citizen and would gladly hand over everything they have, but of course, they wouldn't.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

90% is probably a bit extreme for that income rate. I'm assuming that it was used more as a conversation starter than anything else. Realistically something closer to 50% at that tax bracket makes sense, whereas I could see 90% only applied to those with incomes over, say, $50 million. At that point we're in "I can build Neverland" territory, and it gets really difficult to justify a difference in quality of life between $10 and $20 million, for example.

You make valid points about the luxury manufacturers. I think that they will survive a tax increase. They will have a little less demand for their products, but the demand isn't going to subside completely. Luxury goods is also one of those markets that never really dries up. There's always going to be a demand for the "best" version of something.

If we want to look at what would happen in either scenario, we should consider which option benefits the most people. The tax increases will fund things like jobs programs which would put millions of people back to work. If we lose 2000 luxury manufacturing jobs to create 1 million jobs in general, is that trade-off worth it? I think so.

Don't forget that getting more people back to work will increase the number of people with discretionary income. More discretionary income > more $ to spend outside of the basics > more demand for all kinds of goods and services > more opportunities for business to meet those demands. If there is more money to spend, then it makes sense that business across the board would pick up.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

We could argue these things all day. I could agree with you about people who make over $50 million having a 90% tax bracket. Do you know how many people there are who make that? Almost no one. And those that do would switch asset classes to avoid paying the 90%, like anyone would. Wouldn't you? Do you know how little tax revenue it would bring in to supposedly create all these million jobs you're talking about. You have to reach WAY below the million dollar income level, down to about $150k and increase taxes on all of them. Please just do the math. Go to the tax foundation website and pull figures from 2010 on the number of taxpayers in each income level and their combined income. Then do the numbers on our annual deficit and our total debt, and you will quickly realize that the only way to get there is to increase taxes ridiculously on the top 50%. The total annual income in the entire nation is around $7.7 trillion. Just take 10% of that and it's $770 billion, a little over half our annual deficit. So without hurting the "poor", who pay no income taxes, you'd have to raise everyone from the 1% to 50% by about 25 percentage points in taxes just to break even. There isn't enough income at the top to even come close and the politicians know it would be suicide to tell the rest that they need an extra 25% in taxes from them to keep up current spending levels. So they do nothing, start class warfare, and go nowhere, knowing they can always just point the finger at someone else. That is why we need to get spending under control dramatically AND just let the Bush tax cuts expire, period. No one was going berserk in the Clinton era or early Bush era over taxes. We did fine. Go back to it and cut spending by $500-$600 billion and it'll probably come somewhere near balancing the budget.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Don't forget that the middle class is still getting taxed through these increases ;)

I don't have the time to do the math right now, but I would be interested in seeing how the numbers will add up.

"That is why we need to get spending under control dramatically AND just let the Bush tax cuts expire, period."

Agree. I want to see us get out of foreign wars that we can't afford. I'm not generally a Ron Paul fan, but his foreign policy is spot on in this regard. We need to reign in military spending. Start by cutting the pork and terminating contracts that are getting us nowhere. I keep hearing news reports about such-and-such $50 million spy jet, or more millions being poured into researching more ways to kill each other. I don't get why we can't stick with the tried-and-true weapons that we already have until we get a surplus, and see if we should pull out of a couple of military bases where we aren't welcome.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Ok, we're making progress. But math is important, and so are priorities. Citzens for Tax Justice had an analysis when the Simpson Bowles commission was doing their work, that if the Bush tax cuts for the top 5%, those making between $176k-$477k, were continued, that it would cost the treausury $2 trillion over 10 years, or $200 billion per year. Ok, Xenu, follow me. We're now going to reach down and get higher taxes from every family that makes over $176k, and if we do, not only is Obama's pledge blown out of the water, but we're only going to get $200 billion a year out of the $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. Nothing to sneeze at, and certainly more than the paltry $5 billion a year that this "millionaire's tax" is going to raise, but look, Xenu, we're still $1.2 trillion ANNUALLY short. The ENTIRE military budget is about $750 billion range annually, so if you were to close every base, get rid of our army, and throw everyone in the Pentagon onto the street, you'd still be $500 billion short. Who else is going to pay, Xenu? I know, corporations, who are paying about $150 billion now. I know. We'll get rid of the military and triple corporate taxes. Problem solved. Whew!

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

"not only is Obama's pledge blown out of the water"

Huh? What pledge?

Have you looked into cutting all of the loopholes out? I bet revenue would increase greatly just by eliminating corporate tax loopholes and cutting defense spending by, say, 40%. We still need an army, just not one that occupies every country in the world... and we don't need to waste $ on these crazy $50 million experimental aircraft.

What would happen if we shredded the entire tax code and replaced it with a five page tax code?

Page 1: Personal income tax. 1% for people making < $25,000 up to 90% for people with incomes of $50,000,000.

Page 2: Profit tax. Tax profits after $50,000 (so no taxes for struggling small businesses.)

Page 3: Keep American Jobs tax break, one 15-20% reduction if your business can prove that X% of its workforce is American, or that X% of the goods that it sells are made in america.

Page 4: Capital gains tax, based on how much is earned from interest and futures speculation.

Page 5: Job creation tax break. Cut another X% off of business taxes if that business adds X number of new jobs in the US.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

The pledge was not to raise taxes on those below $250k. I have looked at the military budget and turns out we can save a lot by getting out of Afghanistan, which I am for, which will save about 25% of the military budget right off the bat. Then I think another 10% haircut is in the offing and would not affect military readiness much, if any. I also think discretionary spending could be cut 10% and no one would even notice, that's another $64 billion right there. I agree with most of your other points, but the tax structure is largely what is in place now. The bottom 50% of taxpayers making $32k or less pay on average 1.44% of their income in taxes, close to what you have. The number of people making $50M or more is so small it would not even be of statistical significance, although it would make you feel better. The other ones are good ideas, but also create a lot of fertile ground for corrupted politicians and creative accountants to determine what is and isn't job creation, where good are sold, etc.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Sometimes people need to fall back on their pledges if a better option presents itself. Case in point, how many politicians are now forced into a corner because they signed Grover Norquist's "no new taxes" pledge?

I agree about Afghanistan. I'm sure you and I are not the only ones who are tired of these decades-long "missions." We should have went in with bombers and special-ops, hit our targets, and left. None of this "occupy your country for 10+ years and try to get your people to like us, while actually inciting more hatred of America" BS.

"The number of people making $50M or more is so small it would not even be of statistical significance, although it would make you feel better. "

Disagree on this point. It is a ridiculous minority for sure, but at this point we're talking about how much tax we want to charge the people on the Forbes list. Anyone with an income of $1 billion would provide $900 million+ EACH. That adds up very quickly.

What that bracket would really end up being would be an artificial income cap. I would expect a lot of people to do what they can to keep their incomes at $49,999,999.99 instead of taking the tax bump. It basically ensures that money keeps flowing in the economy instead of being holed up in someone's personal accounts.

"The other ones are good ideas, but also create a lot of fertile ground for corrupted politicians and creative accountants to determine what is and isn't job creation, where good are sold, etc."

Yeah, I would want a legal team to make those provisions bullet-proof before actually passing a tax code like this. There would need to be strong legal language that stipulates exactly what is defined as "creating a job."

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

The Forbes list does not list their annual income. It lists their net worth and the projected increase or decrease based on the stock market and/or their holdings in particular companies. Unless we're now talking about retroactively going back and stealing the legal earnings of individuals (which actually wouldn't surprise me based on the ravings of some on this site), you're not going to get this money. As others have said, tax revenue has historically been relatively stable as a percentage of GDP regardless of the marginal tax rates imposed. You just have much higher tax avoidance as rates go higher.

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

This system is devised for use in conjunction with a participatory consensus democracy, and a market with proper costing,. etc. as many here are creating. Funding unwanted anything (waR) would be a thing of the past.

Perhaps there could be a 'windfall' or 'ships-came-in' function; you can hold some income in trust and pay taxes on it in a future year when you take it out. (when you make less, retirement, etc.) Anyway, whatever, the idea IS to limit wealth accumulation, making it difficult for anyone to amass absurd fortunes. No one needs more than a million dollars a year, incomes have a limit in a just society.

Again, with the parroting of the tired 'jealousy' ad hominem, you are too weak. It is not about 'taking away' from anyone. it is about leveling the playing field, about limiting one persons power over others. If you let power grow it just grows out of control it has a snowball effect, a little wealth can easily make more. we are going to remove the casino and the 'house' from the system, creating freedom and equality.

[-] 2 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

As per your first sentence you are wrong. Work is work. Your view is inherently elitist. Take a social worker with a masters degree; if they are lucky enough to be employed they make about as much as a qualified mechanic. The whole resource distribution of wages in America is NOT based upon merit in any sense of the word, so your whole argument goes out the window.

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

I don't think you are responding to me, as your comment does not follow anything I have said? The first sentence of the post you respond to is; "This system is devised for use in conjunction with a participatory consensus democracy, and a market with proper costing,. etc. as many here are creating. Funding unwanted anything (waR) would be a thing of the past." ??

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

Who says a million dollars in enough? And who are you to decide what is enough? US is what it is because of wealth creation and not wealth limitation. As for limiting power, we have laws for that, remember? You are conjuring up improbable D Day scenarios.

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

I have not decided anything, I am proposing an improved tax system idea for people to debate, this is how we learn stuff. All the numbers are just roughed in, the main point being a limiting taxation level at the top 90%, and a minimum income provided at the bottom, if you make less than $25,000 in a year you are given this amount with plenty of room in the middle to allow individuality, just in a healthy system that dose not create poverty, homelessness, and petty crime. The idea is to nurf the financial / monetary system so none rise too high (despots, robber barons) and none fall to far,. .

I agree, the US is in the mess it is in, because of wealth creation, and lack of power limiting!

What 'D Day scenarios' are you talking about ??

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

I'm assuming if someone had the audacity to save and invest and eventually accumulated a great deal of money, you would naturally prevent it from being passed on to their children and institute a huge estate tax? Because there will always be people who will wish to do so and become rich and you will have to turn the vices of government tighter and tighter to prevent it.

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

I think when you have a system where no one is left behind,. where people are provided a living from the social whole with no strings attached, a system that actively limits power and wealth accumulation for the many reasons that we have identified, then acquiring a great fortune becomes less rational.

when natural resources are collectively owned and managed, we all benefit. and more equally. why should it be any other way?

all this requires changes in the culture,. as we are seeing.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Its time the private ownership of world resources by the .001% is ended. It is time to stop privatization and the destruction of programs that protect workers from gross exploitation. Its time to stop the monopoly on the world's seed in a concerted effort pave the way to gross exploitation or mass starvation. The top .001% are shocked the masses haven't hunted them down and done what the French did to such despots! They are powerful, so powerful they live in fear of the people they set out to harm. And they do mean to harm, they are not Benevolent dictators reshaping the world into a better more modern place for the good of all or any other fairytale. They lobby, they enact policies that harm people for the sake of lining their coffers. We've now noticed and are saying something. What gets me is that these trolls would slit the throats of their very own Grandma for a $1 tax break. Unbelievable. The idea of taking in $50 less in taxes and cutting social programs by $300 dollars or more has so been done to death. One never happens without the other happening so it should be a part of any discussion that involves a tax cut. It is an inescapable reality, a cause that constantly produces the same effect.

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

yes, the seed corporations are down right scary,. they produce chemical 'herbicides' that kill all plant life and only leaves their genetically modified 'products', that are patented. once they have altered the DNA they can claim a patent on any plan(animal too?). they also have devised the 'terminator' seeds! that produce one corp, and their seeds are not viable the next year,. what useful purpose does that modification have?? NONE but a way to monopolize all farming for a few corporations. yes they are vying for total control, and food is a major part of the plan.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/194/terminator-technology

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

People are afraid to protest today but the day will come when its a matter of how much strength they will have to protest as they are starving. A few may die protesting but a lot of people will die if this is allowed to go on.

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

Living with no strings attached will only lead to more free riders.

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

perhaps,. but does not every one deserve a basic living? there are more motivations for people to take on any activity in life, than 'financial gain'. these free riders would include the aged, the mentally ill, the infirm, writers, philosophers, and poets,. people doing activism; that does not pay any cash reward, strange this movement is people doing work for no direct cash reward and yet we see it growing?! ?

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

Define 'basic living'? I don't include the aged, mentally ill and disabled among free riders. As for writers, philosopher and poets, well too bad. If they want to continue with their professions they better find some part time work that makes some money. Otherwise, every free rider would claim he/she is a poet.

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

I guess I just do not think punishing people for existing is logical or humane. You come across as cold and harsh, is that what you want? There is no need for it, the world provides a living (resources) for ever creature on it, some people simply take more than their share ,and have little regard for the effects of their actions on others.

You realize that people use to just exist with no one owning anything right? The system that you cling to, is a made up social construct, nothing is 'correct' of 'optimal' about it. It just grew over time and is imbued with many flaws,. it has lead to the current situation and provides no good way forward.

What is a basic living? Well that can be determined by consensus, for me at current north american costs $25,000 is reasonable. Just food, shelter, energy, clothes not much else. I hope you realize that it is not just the 'freeloaders,' as you wrongly call them that benefit, the whole of society and humanity is uplifted as less people are made struggle just to live simply. All the money people get in these lower in come brackets is spent immediately, it goes right into the local economy and supports the community (as you can not do much more than rent and food, and cloths on this income). This is an important benefit of this system, it helps prevents recession by keeping the important parts of the economy (food, energy, shelter) from ever failing. Realize that MOST people are not willing to live on that low income, and will work to do better, than just this basic living.

This type if system with a progressive tax that severely limits at the (generous million dollar) top-end of income and provides a minimum income to all, is actually cheaper when properly costed. all the bureaucracies of the social programs that currently provide services to the low income, jobless, homeless, etc. can be done away with, freeing up many resources. It is only an indication of greed, that anyone would fight against others getting a pittance to live on, while they are making half a million a year or more. Pure greed.

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

I want people to bear their own weight. Is that too much to ask? And I don't include the extremely poor (below poverty line) or aged or disabled in that. They sure need and deserve social security and assistance. But for everybody else, they need to pull their own weight at the least.

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I want that too. The rich should pay their fair share of taxes. Right now they are bearing proportionally less of the burden than those in the middle class.

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

And they do/will! do you see some lack of middle class effort? most people want to achieve 'something', smart energetic people put in the effort to see it happen. Some people are lazy no doubt, others are depressed, have mental issues, or are just not that capable. Have you ever worked with a dipsht? I would rather some of these people were 'payed off' to stay home, but hay I have a very short little tolerance for bullsht. Anyway,. the idea is not about helping people drift though life but some people will do this no mater what,. so the point is moot. the idea is to redesign our systems of social organisation to better serve the world and it's people. I just think we can do better.

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

Again let me repeat, we as a society must extend all possible economic and social support we can to the ones below poverty line, aged or the disabled. Barring that, everyone needs to justify their existence.

[-] 0 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Free riders? You mean like the ultra wealthy who live on entitlements?

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

No I mean the ones who did not pay enough attention in school to score well, then entered some community college or some other lesser known place and because they did not have brains they got a degree in some stupid humanities subject (like most people here) and now complain they don't have jobs despite their degrees and protest outside the bank, wearing designer clothing and flashing iPhones, that gave them the student loan and complain how life has given them a raw deal. Those 'free riders'.

[-] 3 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

So, you're saying our system is based upon intellectual merit?

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

This is an oligarchy, not a meritocracy! You think GWB got where he got through a mertiocracy?

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

[-] 2 points by indianstudent (42) 2 years ago

Dude, I think US higher education system is by far the most fair and it fairly easy to get into a US univ. I know people from tier 2 Indian universities, making it to masters program in computer science at CMU and USC. And no those guys didnt have contacts and knew no one. If only getting into a good univ was that easy in India. Here, to get into a IIT you and 500,000 other students appear for an exam (which tests your math, physics and chem skills) and only the top 5,000 students get an admission. US is far easier any day.

[-] 0 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Dude . . . you're a troll.

[-] 2 points by indianstudent (42) 2 years ago

Truth hurts, doesn't it? Seriously, I don't understand what else Americans want. You guys have by far the best of the world at your disposal and yet somehow you guys think life is unfair to you. Come to a third world country and stay for 3 months, you wil realize how damn lucky you are.

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

It's a oligarchy, is it? My dad made less than $70k a year before he retired 3 years ago and I did my BS, MS (both in Computer science) and MBA from 3 different universities which are regularly ranked in top 10 in the country. And most of my friends too were from middle class background. And those students from India and China, there parents made somewhere between $1000 - $2000 per month and yet these guys made it to the top universities here; some had scholarships while other took loans and worked sundry jobs to get by.

And none of them are now squatting in Zuccoti park, and each and everyone of them are successful either as engineers, managers, bankers or academics.

Losers will always find ample excuses to try and explain their plight. I don't know how and why GWB got into Harvard but in those days Harvard fees weren't this high. Besides, he did an MBA when MBA wasn't all that in demand. Sure his father and grandfather being filthy rich must have had something to do with it. But to derive the conclusion that higher education is only a perverse of the rich is stupid.

[-] 2 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

What, you don't think GWB got in there on merit? I thought him and Dan Quale teamed up to create a brilliant new mathematical theory that could be applied to save the world from global warming.

No way, this is an oligarchy with guys like that taking slots in the nations best universities. Those guys who didn't get in - can you say brilliant loser . . . LOSER!!!

. . . Just couldn't compete on a fair playing field!

The shroud Corporate America so lovingly created to hide its dagger has been lifted and people can see it clearly. Just shove this old bushel of lies, nobodies buying anymore.

J. P. Morgan, photograph: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/J-P-Morgan-as-Cutthroat-Capitalist.html

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

If you are reasonably smart and have a decent academic track record, you can make it at least a top 20 ranked university.

[-] 0 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Bull Shit. You can if you got bucks. You know what tuition is now in a top 20 university?

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

Yes I do. I finished my MBA in 2010. There are plenty of scholarships available for students. And there are less expensive univs in the top 20 too.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

I read you actually got a scholarship! You are so lucky. Most good schools don't hand out that many and they are not easy to get. You didn't get it because they come in crackerjack boxes though!

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

That is bullshit. There are not plenty of scholarships to Ivy League schools. There are token ones, reserved for the graduates of affluent high schools, the kids of professors and the like. Actual scholarships offered to the masses without stipulations that virtually no one could meet accept by virtue of their birth into affluent families who don't even need them are few and far between.

[-] 1 points by Thrive2012 (2) 2 years ago

"and each and everyone of them are successful either as engineers, managers, bankers or academics'-- This is sad. These Engineers, managers, etc are taking usually exploited for long hours of works like slaves, and paid so so wages, and taking "Shit" from the higher ignorant managers who know nothing about the job, and are probably there because they know somebody, and or are good "ass kissers", who take the all credits from the people they manage . That's the classical Corporate America BS.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Thank You, Thrive!

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

Really? What have you been drinking?

  1. Whether engineers, bankers, consultants, these guys chose to work in these professions. If they wanted more relaxed life they could have done something else, may be become teachers and professors.

  2. Are you telling me bankers get so so wages? As for the engineers, those are now earning somewhere near 150-200k at the least.

  3. Higher management knows nothing about the job, eh? And yet magically my company beats market expectations every year and our revenues and profits get higher and higher.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

You're not better than anyone else. You are the same as the homeless guy down the street. You have the same parts, and doing something different or having something different doesn't make you "better" than him.

That's what all of your arguments boil down to. You feel "entitled" to all of your tax breaks and government cow-towing because you think that you're better than everyone else. You're not. I think you are scum just one degree separated from Nazis and Clansmen for the amount of indifference and hate that you have towards anyone who you don't deem to be worthy. You don't deserve a tax break. You don't deserve anything.

And how much did daddy pay for your college degrees? Are you going to make up some lie about working to pay off every penny of that debt yourself, or do you feel "entitled" to have a parent with a comfortable enough income to pay for your tuition?

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

I got full scholarships for my BS and MS and am paying off the loan for my MBA. And with the savings I had and the salary I make post MBA, paying off the loan isn't much of a stretch.

And it is parasites like you that feel entitled to freebies. I worked my ass off, getting good grades all through school and undergrad to be where I am. I am not better, I just played my cards right. While the other kids were wasting time, I studied or did other productive things. Not that those kids were brainless, but just that I was diligent.

[-] 2 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

You should have stopped was a BS. That's all you're good for.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

No matter how much education you have, it hasn't done much for your character. You lack compassion, you hurl insults and you are full of an unattractive hubris.

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

Am I judging your character? And do you really think passing these moral BS judgement gonna make a difference? As for my compassion, I show it in better ways than to simply squat in parks demanding handouts or commenting incessantly on a forum. If you really are so compassionate go help some people in need, may be teach a few poor kids in ur free time or volunteer for some charitable cause that is not OWS. Then we can talk.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

You are judging everyone's character that supports OWS. You are judging the character of every person who didn't make it into the "great" schools you went to. You are the judgmental one.

[-] -1 points by conservativemajority (-30) 2 years ago

Beautiful world thinks he knows people's motives and what he knows is that poor people have the best motives of all. Because of this, it's wrong to discuss things like how failure relates to things like education, skill, and effort. In his fuzzy little head, assessments and moral judgements are the same things.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

You are the parasite. Sucking the money away from the rest of America with your greedy entitlements. You suck away the poor people's money with your tax breaks and then we get our programs cut as a result. Pay your fair share of taxes, and I won't care what you do with your money.

I played my cards right too. I also have a degree and am successful at what I do. The difference is that I appreciate having a police force, roads without potholes, a public education system, and laws that are keeping my air and water clean. You don't want to pay for those things. You just want to get by without paying for all of the things that the government provides for you, but you expect everyone else to pay? That's not hypocritical at all...

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

Can you read? I never said I dont want to pay taxes. I said a 90% top tax rate is atrocious. Besides, as per your plan that 90% is for income above $500k and I dont make that much (yet).

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

Do you understand the difference between a tax rate and a marginal tax rate? The latter does not tax you on the entirety of your income at higher rates, but does so progressively on income that exceeds certain thresholds.

[-] -1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

The point is that the rich need to pay their fair share in taxes instead of getting tax breaks. Its about being fair. Whether the fair share ends up being 90% or less is irrelevant.

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

The number of likes on this post shows that this place is filled with fools who screwed up their education and could not make it to a good univ and now blame others for this. You are in nice company.

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

Alternatively, the number of likes shows that you have a hot load of douchebaggery going on there.

[+] -4 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Ah so you are one of those too. Stop resenting others success and blaming your failures on others. That's how you get ahead in life. As for higher education in US, it is pretty easy to get into a top notch univ if you are reasonably smart. If you could not even manage that much, thats your fault.

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

Oh, I have a degree. I just think you are a complete and utter ass for saying things like that. In fact, you are kind of dirtbaggy.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Love it - absolutely love it.

GF you are so straight forward and to the point. No one could fail to understand. Ambiguous is not in your vocabulary, or I should say in your communications.

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

He seemed to have no problem acting like a total jerk. Fuck him.

[-] -1 points by conservativemajority (-30) 2 years ago

A degree in what? Something useless like sociology or women's studies? It's gotta be something like that are at least something related to social "services".

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

Well, that's pretty presumptuous of you. Doncha think? And who the fuck are you?

[-] -3 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

You have a degree. Great. Bravo. Good for you. And every other guy has a 'degree'.

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

Who the fuck are you, again?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I just wish that you had actually said something so friday could have schooled you proper like.

[-] -2 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

True success in our system is not based on intillectual merit not even close.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

You still get $ 2,45 million for four years work, about 60 times the minimum wage. You think low wage earners don't work long hours, or what?

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

It's not just about working long hours but getting the fruits of your own labor. The work done by a min wage worker is vastly different from that of an engineer or doctor or banker or entrepreneur.

All of you here who have never made anything close to a million sit and decide what others who have made that kind of money should do with their wealth. It's not surprising then that all of you want to part them of their wealth, it's called jealousy. Why don't you ask a few millionaires what they think they should do with their wealth?

As I have already said, charity begins at home. So I will shut up if

  1. You donate 90% of your salary for a year to charity
  2. You make a million dollars and donate 90% of it to charity.
[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

That's not how it works. The people with the money can give to charity. The rich can afford to help, but then they waste their money on frivolous things like jewelry and luxury goods. Then people like you have the gall to complain about how other people spend their money, because apparently its not hypocritical to pretend like criticizing the rich' spending is off-limits, but criticizing the poor is not.

Send a million $ to my PayPal account, and I guarantee that I will make a $450,000 donation to Planned Parenthood, and a $450,000 donation to Second Harvest. Or, $900,000 can buy one of these empty buildings around town and be converted into a homeless shelter. Your choice.

How much money have you given to charity? Have you helped anyone outside of your immediate family?

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

So I send you a million dollars and then you will spend it? First earn that million and then we will talk.

As for my contribution to charity, frankly I haven't done much. But as a undergrad student I worked with the UN on their MDP goals, wrote code and documentation for OLPC project, volunteer time to math to poor kids in manhattan. As for financial contribution, I would choose not to disclose that.

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Why do I have to earn a million to have an opinion on how it should be spent?

You know what: Don't say a damn thing critical of your favorite football team unless you can play ball just as well. Don't criticize popular music unless you have a few Grammys. Don't call an artist rubbish unless you can paint like Picasso. Don't refuse a steak at the restaurant because you are not the Next Iron Chef.

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

That's different.

You want the onus of generosity and charity on others. You can get away with that because you know you would never earn that kind of money. Very different. Do you understand context at all?

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Its exactly the same. You don't know how much money I will or will not earn, but I do know that your scrawny ass will never make it in the NFL. Neither will mine. Or a lot of those guys on ESPN, who are paid to comment about something that they will never be good enough at. Its ridiculous to think that being poor takes away your right to free speech, like you so claim.

I guess I should just be an obedient out-of-the-way guy, huh? Never speak up. Just go to work and watch TV like the rest of the drones? Did your parents teach you to be a conformist too? To shut up and never question anything about your life? I almost feel bad for you. Almost.

I want people to be equally charitable. Since I can't force people to spend their money wisely, I would rather have that enacted through a fair share of taxes, so that the government can put the money where it needs to go to benefit all of us.

We're talking about people who can just buy new cars on a whim, eat out every day, and never have to worry about medical bills. Why should I be sympathetic to them at all? I really don't care what they do, as long as they are contributing members of society.

[-] -3 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

I don't have a problem with you questioning stuff. I just have a problem with your questioned because

  1. You are grossly misinformed (Did your barely literate daddy not buy you enough books?)
  2. You are greedy (Greed is so deeply rooted in your psyche that you don't even recognize it. Must have been your upbringing)
[-] 4 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Projection much? You're the one who wants the rich to pay less taxes. That sounds pretty greedy to me...

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by conservativemajority (-30) 2 years ago

And, of course, many of us could simply take our working years offshore. I could work out of Bermuda or Toronto if these kleptocrat occutards ever got their way.

You nailed. Muttering around about schemes to take what someone else is a poor substitute for simply applying yourself and earning it.

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

Sounds a lot better than the Rich and Corporate Welfare we have now!

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, how about lowering the taxes on the 99%? Consider it a "you are a loser" rate.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

"Wouldn't it be more fair to" ensure that Corporations paid their fair share of taxes :

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

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

fiat justitia ruat caelum ...

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Those are companies. Companies don't have to eat. Glad to see you so focused on your hatred of companies that employ people that you don't care about the 99% that have to eat.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

I'm sure that you know what you mean however, I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Eating is what people have to do in order to live. It involves putting substance that has what would be considered nutritional properties into the mouth and chewing (hopefully) and ingesting the masticated result. People have to "eat" every day (for best results), corporations do not need to ingest the nutritional substances in the manner human beings do.

I hope that helps to clear up the matter of eating for you,

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

"Man does NOT live by bread alone", 't' - geddit ?

You seem quite impervious to the rationale behind my last but one comment and instead choose to engage in useless inanities.

Consider, that encouraged by narrow and blinkered 'The Prophets of Profit', Trans-National Corporations are "eating" The Planet and Humanity every minute of every day as these days in Consumer Capitalism, it is increasingly The Planet and Us Humans who are being 'commodified and consumed'. Ever heard of 'The Externalities of Capitalism' ?

Also, you seem to have nothing to say on the inherent deep unfairness of most people paying their taxes whilst The Corporations & the most wealthy are evading, avoiding & failing to pay their fair share.

Further, on the matter of taxes, you seem to have 'nada' to say about the costs of The WAR Machine & The Empire. Please honestly try to reflect as to "Wouldn't it be more fair" to consider this too ? Thus : http://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/FY2012piechart-color.pdf .

fiat lux ...

[Removed]

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

that progressive scheme would do that,. sans the insult.

there would also be a guaranteed minimum income, for anyone not paying taxes. like the 'passing go' money you get in monopoly.

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Perhaps anyone not paying taxes should just be happy they live in a country where they don't have to worry about starving.

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

some of us, just prefer to treat everyone with a little more respect, and reverence even. did some one steal your favorite toy? why are you so hostile to the rest of us ?

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

Gee, let's starve the government of revenue so it an no longer operate. Great idea. NOT.

Why not raise the top marginal rates to where they were at the time of America's greatest prosperity, at 90%?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Here are an article & a pie chart - make of it what you will :-)

fiat lux ...

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

Do you really think that "Starve the Beast" will starve the military (something both of us would like to see happen)? The first things cut are always social services. Right now, one of the most successful programs being cut is employment retraining for those who have lost their jobs. This, in a time when it is needed more than ever. A single person currently on General Assistance (one of today's forms of Welfare) receives a total of $210 dollars a month to live on. (And if the recipient earns more than $1028.00 dollars per YEAR, they are cut off.) The "Starve the Beast" folks want to make sure that is cut, too.

The ICH article is a crock. The pie chart is another issue. It is debatable, but it has merit.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

'Fairy Nuff' epa1nter : You'll note that I was far from emphatic about the link.

However, I thought it had some value within the context of this thread and in truth your acerbic but excellent rejoinder was worth me posting the article and I agree with you. The ICH is exactly that - a 'Clearing House for Information' - "make of it what you will" :-)

pax.

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

Sorry about the acerbic tone, but I felt you posted what amounts to a distraction.

As to ICH, I feel it is a misnamed site. It provides lots of opinions as information, and I was frankly surprised you would link to it, especially as this particular article was just so much veiled libertarianism. I am glad you weren't emphatic about it ! ;)

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

More than half the budget is transfer payments, not operating expenses.

Why not lower spending to the time you mention?

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

Because it would hurt the poor as well as the middle class. Since one can't lower spending on interest payments, the money would have to come from somewhere: the operating expenses. The government needs to operate in order to take care of its obligations to the citizens.

The answer is to raise revenue in the long terms by eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy and investing in job creation now to expand the tax base and generate more revenue in the future.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You say the 50's were the golden era, so if spending was lower then, why not use your logic.

Yeah right, invest in job creation, like what green energy.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You take all of the fun out of it when you answer your own question so competently.

Green Energy - Technology R&D and implementation.


[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (232) 19 minutes ago

You say the 50's were the golden era, so if spending was lower then, why not use your logic.

Yeah right, invest in job creation, like what green energy. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

So that's why we should invest in green energy when fracking has reduced the price of natural gas to multiples cheaper?

So have you seen the unemployment rate in North Dakota lately? And the Federal government was for LNG.

Sorry, I'm taking the fun out of what? Do you even know what you are talking about.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep - reducing and eventually ending dependence on Fossil Fuel and it's attendant pollution. Shifting the labor force out of fossil fuel and into green energy/fuel, perhaps the energy industry and some of their profits could then be used in cleaning up toxic waste and damage from the fossil fuel industry and it's use's. Think of all of the jobs and when the environment has been cleaned those workers could be shifted into other clean operating business or infrastructure improvements.


Do you know what you are talking about?

Our Fossil Fuel reserves are such that we are exporting - and guess what?

NO REDUCTION IN COST AT THE PUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Different type of oil, no pipeline from ND to the Gulf - thank you Obama and no refineries - thank you protestors.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And the problem with that?


[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (232) 3 minutes ago

Different type of oil, no pipeline from ND to the Gulf - thank you Obama and no refineries - thank you protestors. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

The problem is what you have pointed out - high gas prices.

There is such a lack of transport capacity that they are now burning the gas into the air. I thought you were an environmentalist.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

BullShit - you provide proof that resources are being destroyed because they can not be processed.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I just spoke with the state treasure a month ago who clued me into this.

From the environmental group CERES:

We are a group of 37 investors, representing $500 billion in total assets, who areconcerned about the financial risks associated with the flaring of natural gas that has accompanied fast-proliferating oil production from shale formations in North Dakota, Texas and elsewhere in the U.S.

We are concerned that excessive flaring, because of its impact on air quality and climate change, poses significant risks for the companies involved, and for the industry at large,ultimately threatening the industry’s license to operate.

As you know, shale oil production, made possible by hydraulic fracturing technology,…is poised to become the world’s largest oil producer in the next five years, with nearly all of this projected growth coming from shale oil. …

On a lifecycle basis, emissions from oil produced with high flaring rates may be comparable to those from Canada’s vast oil sands region".

They need pipelines and storage in order not to flare.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This statement of yours :

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (246) 25 minutes ago

The problem is what you have pointed out - high gas prices.

There is such a lack of transport capacity that they are now burning the gas into the air. I thought you were an environmentalist.


Has nothing to do with this statement of yours:

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (246) 0 minutes ago

I just spoke with the state treasure a month ago who clued me into this.

From the environmental group CERES:

We are a group of 37 investors, representing $500 billion in total assets, who areconcerned about the financial risks associated with the flaring of natural gas that has accompanied fast-proliferating oil production from shale formations in North Dakota, Texas and elsewhere in the U.S.

We are concerned that excessive flaring, because of its impact on air quality and climate change, poses significant risks for the companies involved, and for the industry at large,ultimately threatening the industry’s license to operate.

As you know, shale oil production, made possible by hydraulic fracturing technology,…is poised to become the world’s largest oil producer in the next five years, with nearly all of this projected growth coming from shale oil. …

On a lifecycle basis, emissions from oil produced with high flaring rates may be comparable to those from Canada’s vast oil sands region".

They need pipelines and storage in order not to flare. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink


Your combined statements point out to irresponsible practice not ability of the industry but a poor practice that is being allowed to happen.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

WTF are you talking about. He did just approve the southern end of the keystone pipeline, why would he stand in the way of properly processing resources that he opened up to the industry? They are wasting the resource because it is cost effective for them to do so. PERIOD. BTW - He is not my man - He is the current man in office.

Keystone is not approved. He has done everything to stop this find. Thankfully Tom Mitchell didn't listen to the Energy Dept and kept going forward.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You have shit for brains - the approval of the southern end of the pipeline by Obama has been in the news for some time now. The northern end is still in flux.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Your man won't allow the pipelines!!!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

WTF are you talking about. He did just approve the southern end of the keystone pipeline, why would he stand in the way of properly processing resources that he opened up to the industry? They are wasting the resource because it is cost effective for them to do so. PERIOD.

BTW - He is not my man - He is the current man in office.

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

Spending was lower in terms of absolute dollars, but so was GDP. You actually have to look at both sides of the equation.

Green energy investment is one area, absolutely. So is repairing bridges and building and staffing new schools. There are many other projects in many other areas that could be undertaken as well. And much of the money - at least for green energy R&D - could come from eliminating the subsidies and tax breaks for oil and coal.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

It was lower as a % of GDP.

This is the problem you want to invest in green energy when it is clear that naturla gas and oil from fracking is the answer for at least the nexy 100 years. We are wasting money on green energy. It was the private market that came up with this solution not your man in DC.

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

Devastating the environment is not taking care of the debt. It simply creates a situation that future generations will have to pay to clean up. It creates new debt.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Natural gas is much cleaner burning that oil. So why not build the pipeline. Instead we are spending money on solar and wind and the only people benefitting are Obama's cronies and the unions. It's a land grab.

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

Fracking it toxic.

The pipeline was for EXPORTING oil. It would have ZERO effect on domestic prices, which are set by the international commodities exchanges, not by the US domestic market.

The only people benefitting now are the oil industries.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

The technique is not toxic according to the energy department.

Putting more oil on the market makes the overall supply increase, lowering price. It is a concept called fungibility - first year economics. Exchanges don't set prices, supply and demand do.

So the people who can heat their houses with lower gas prices aren't benefitting. Sure you make a lot of sense.

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

It IS toxic according to those who have no economic or political stake in the game.

The history of the energy department's suppression of research in this area by its scientists has been well documented.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Yeah, and I can find somebody who believes in little green men as well.

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

This issue has been exposed by such conspiracy-minded newspapers as the New York Times. And we all know how the Times is always looking to find the truth about Bigfoot and Area 51.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

The energy department is run by your man in Washington. So now you want us to listen to the NYT but not your own energy department. You are the one saying that the government is the best allocator of assets and the best operator and now you don't want to listeb to them?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You linked a letter regarding oil speculation on the futures exchange. It has nothing to do with oil fracking.

Nice comment by the way to choke on it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

As you seem to have forgotten your comment:

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (291) 1 day ago

The energy department is run by your man in Washington. So now you want us to listen to the NYT but not your own energy department. You are the one saying that the government is the best allocator of assets and the best operator and now you don't want to listeb to them? ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink


You expect to see sane prices at the pumps? Ever?

Choke on it:

http://sanders.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100084830.557414.184&gen=1&mailing_linkid=44565

[-] -1 points by Delouser (-54) 2 years ago

And de-stupid is an OWSer quoting Bernie Sanders.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What.........I mean who did you used to be? What were you banned for?

Delouser

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined April 14, 2012

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Just the latest troll. It's so hard not to take the bait though, isn't it? So very, very hard. ;-)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thanks I try not to feed trolls only alert their presence and then dispel crap with facts so that the unwary may see and understand.

{:-])

[-] -2 points by Delouser (-54) 2 years ago

Ignorance is toxic. Natural gas prices are at a 10 year low because of fracking. That benefits you. It's driven down home heating costs and the price of electricity.

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

Oh boy!!

Earthquakes!!!

We can never have enough of those.

BTW NG profits are way up too. those prices could be much lower.

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

Cancer causing poisons in the water table are toxic. Radiation and chemotherapy are more expensive than the difference in the price of gas.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Do you know what you are talking about?

Our Fossil Fuel reserves are such that we are exporting - and guess what?

NO REDUCTION IN COST AT THE PUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Nor does it have anything to do with substantial job creation or boosting the economy for everyone, or creating income equity or helping restore democracy, or anything else we have ben talking about. It is just another one of this troll's diversion tactics when he can't stay on topic.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Truth - and it could not be more clear even with a disclaimer.

{:-])

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Yeah, that is why the unemployment rate in North Dakota is below 3%. You sure make a lot of sense. You two keep it up, everybody is listening.

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

And now your talking about North Dakota. Why not throw in space travel? That would complete your changing the subject to something not being discussed.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

What, read above, that is exactly what we are discussing.While you are at it, look at Louisiana.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

you forgot about all the loopholes then

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

There were always some loopholes. Most of them exist today, too. But the rates were higher, and the wealthy paid more, while the middle class and poor paid less. It is one of the things, in fact, that helped create the middle class.

Despite loopholes, in 1960 the percent of GDP corporations paid in taxes was over 4%. Today it is about 2%. But the percent of DGP of all taxes remained steady. The middle class made up that 2% difference that the corporations pocketed. It is a difference of wealth distribution of $300 billion dollars per year from the bottom to the top. In ten years alone that comes to $3 trillion dollars. And it has been going on for decades. And that's just in one single category!

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

We need to fix the deficit, one way or another, before we appropriate another dime of federal dollars.

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

The way to fix the long term deficit is to invest in jobs now and broaden the tax base. Austerity measures depress the economy, making the debt even larger.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I never mentioned austerity. I said we need to solve the deficit problem before we appropriate another dime, whether that means raising taxes, or other methods. We need a balanced budget.

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

THe deficit is NOT the problem. The long term debt is. They are two separate issues.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

And they both need to be solved.

Sure, it is not the only problem, but how can you say it is not a problem? How are we going to solve the debt if we never have anything left over to pay it down at the end of the year? This is basic math.

The only other option to solve the debt really is to go to war with the countries we loaned from, which is despicable and highly unethical.

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

It is not a problem any more that a car payment is a problem or having a mortgage is a problem. Those are a deficits, too. And in a household budget, they show up as deficits at the end of the year, without negative consequence. The problems arise when the long term debt can't be sustained, not simply because long term debt exists.

In order to solve that problem, more revenue needs to be generated. that is most effectively done by expanding the tax base in combination with raising them on those who have the most money. Expanding teh tax base can only happen via full employment. The government can (and has successfully in the past - think Great Depression and New deal) created jobs by the millions. It took investment: spending. And once the economy was back on track, much the debt was paid down.

It is classic Keynesian economics. It has been demonstrated beyond question to work.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_debt_over_time.html

When was any of it payed back? The only time it decreased, was when we didn't add quite as much to it, and printed money instead causing the value of the debt to decrease.

And you're joking about deficits, right? Car and mortgage payments are outlays. A deficit is money you still owe after all your bills are paid for the year and you have received your income. It is yearly income minus expenses, and when your expenses are higher than your income you are left with a negative figure, increasing your long-term debt.

I can't even fathom how anyone would think this is not a problem.

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

' A deficit is money you still owe after all your bills are paid for the year and you have received your income."

That is what a mortgage is: It is money you still owe on something you purchased.

You don't understand what I'm saying because you don't understand Keyensian economics.
'

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Oh. My. Goodness.

Have you studied basic accounting? Or economics? Arithmetic, even?

The Principal on the mortgage is long term debt.

What we are speaking of is the Mortgage Payment.

If you are not taking in enough income to cover your mortgage payment, you need either more income or a lower payment. This is comparable to a deficit. Deficits are unsustainable, because they only add to long term debt.

We are not even discussing Keynesian economics at this point. Only basic accounting.

Understand it now?

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

Oops, you are correct, in that I was swapping short term debt with yearly deficit. On that point, I stand corrected.

However, that does not, in any way, take away from the point I am making. The deficit is not an issue: the long term debt is an issue. And the way to bring down long term debt is to increase, temporarily short-terms deficits by investing in job growth. By expanding the tax base that results from job growth, the debt can get paid down enough to be entirely sustainable.

Economist Paul Krugman (among others) has written fairly extensively about this. It is also what occurred during and immediately after the introduction o the New Deal.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Okay. We can discuss Keynesian economics if you like, as long as we understand the difference between the debt and the deficit.

So why hasn't it worked for the last six years?

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

It has. Most non-aligned economists believe that millions of jobs have been saved, that the figures would be far worse in terms of employment if stimulus measures weren't taken. However, it has not worked a fraction of what it should have, because it was about half of the spending that should have happened. It was far too conservative.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So you don't care about the 99%? It is more important to screw someone you don't like than help those around you... Yeah! I wanna party with you, dog!

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

Yeah, good try. Cynical and distorting, but par for the course. That's what the right wing specializes in.

I advocate for higher marginal tax rates. They spur the economy and fund the social safety net. They make income distribution more equitable. That helps the 99% far more than letting the wealthy accumulate all of the money.

You want to starve the government so that the poor cannot get any services.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Please explain how taking money from people in the private sector helps "spur" the economy. That is like saying robbing fuel from a gas line makes an engine run better.

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

You gotta be kidding me.

When the wealthy pay more, it leaves more of the economic pie for the middle class and poor. The middle class and the poor have more to spend. That drives the economy.

It it NOT like saying one is robbing fuel form the gas line. The fuel the engine of the economy runs on is consumer spending, not hoarding.

As the wealthy have concentrated greater wealth and along with it, more power to give themselves tax breaks, the tax burden has shifted more to the middle class. Corporations are paying half the percent of GDP in taxes they did in 1960. The rates wealthy pay have also come down by more than 50%. But the percentage of GDP that taxes represent has remained more or less steady at about 19%. That indicates that the poor and middle class - the drivers of the economy - have been paying more as the contribution of the wealthy and the corporations has declined. The 99% were forced to make up the difference. That indicates a redistribution of wealth, from the bottom to the top. When the top 400 people own as much wealth as the bottom 150,000,000, it hurts the economy as a whole, since only a tiny fraction of that wealth at the top goes toward consumer spending.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

When the wealthy pay more, it leaves more of the economic pie for the middle class and poor. The middle class and the poor have more to spend. That drives the economy.

So it is just a zero sum game. There is no multiplier. Where did you go to school?

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

The pie remains the same size. It is a question of who has what share of it and how that effects the economy as a whole. When wealth is concentrated, so is political power. That undermines democracy. All by itself, that's a bad thing.

Economically, when wealth is concentrated, it doesn't move, it doesn't expand the economy or enlarge the pie, and certainly it doesn't do so for the overwhelming majority of people. It is the movement of capital, not its hoarding, that drive the economy. When the poor and middle class have more of the pie, they spend it more of it on goods and services. That spending lowers inventories, creating more profits for more businesses. THat, in turn creates more jobs. That, in turn, creates more demand, expanding the economy and wealth for everyone, not just those at the top.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Fortunately, the pie does not remain the same, it increases and decreases with economic and investment activity. Infact, if you want to play the who spends more game, you can argue that wealthy people invest their money versus spending it on goods and services therefore helping the economy more.

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

The wealthy do NOT contribute to the economy a fraction as much as the middle class. They are not the drivers of the economy. Their "investments" are no longer in capital improvements for manufacturers, but simply pushing money around in hedge funds, derivatives, credit default swaps, and esoteric financial instruments that contribute absolutely nothing. They have "financialized" the economy.

The pie has indeed been expanding as the middle class has been eroding steadily. The greatest portion of that expanding pie has gone to the top, and everybody else's slice has gotten smaller even as the economy has grown. Democracy itself, let alone the economy, has suffered as a result. Clearly, that's not a concern to you.

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

Shut up, you are a clown. Don't even say you represent the workers. I'm a card carrying union worker as is my family going back two generations. We need jobs and your nonsense isn't helping.

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

I was a Union organizer, shop steward and union member for 20 years. My father was also a union member (and for far longer). I am talking about job creation. I am talking about getting more into YOUR pocket instead of the super rich, who do NOT have your best interests at heart. We needed (and now need more than ever) unions precisely because of the greed of the 1%.

When did the economy start to go south in a real way? When Reagan destroyed the Unions, in favor of the 1%. How has income been distributed since then? The middle class has been devastated. 50% of the entire American citizenry is living at or near the poverty line. And all the while the 1% have gotten even richer. That's the same 1% that collapsed the economy, throwing tens of millions of us out of work.

They did the same thing back in the 1930's. It was called the Great Depression. (And income distribution was the same then as it is right now, with the same results.) What brought us out of the depression? Government spending on job creation and raising the top marginal rates of taxes. It put money into the pockets of ordinary workers, who could then spend it on things like food and shelter. We were mostly out of the Depression by 1937. People were working again. People were spending on more than the barest necessities, too. And the economy was on the rise. What threw a monkey wrench into the progress was the Austerity measures of 1937. It set the recover back by years.

So go tell me again I am a clown. Read some history first, and maybe some economics while you're at it.

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

Which union, I'm UA. All of you organizers take our dues and we get nothing out if it.

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

I was with Local 100 in New York. I took zero money, not a single penny when I organized a shop. I was just a worker, who organized because it was the right thing to do in my place of work. In fact, it cost me a good deal of money. I was threatened, beaten, and had a contract put on my life for trying to make sure that my fellow workers got their rights.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You obviously don't understand money flows as they all go to the same place so your comments regarding where certain people spend money is completely ridiculous. Where do you think the money goes when somebody spends on either a candy bar or building a bridge? It goes into the same system and money is fungible. Good grief, I can't believe you folks don;t know this. Have you ever had a bank account or run a boy scout organization?

According to both IRS and census data the middle class has not eroded over the past 30 years. Their income has grown, but not as much as the top level so their slice has not gotten smaller. Their absolute numbers have grown. The IRS data by the way is skewed since it only takes into account those people paying taxes and not the 47% that don't.

I am very worried about democracy. Anytime one group of people can vote to take money money from another just because they want to is very concerning. This is similar to the early days of Nazi Germany.

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

You need to take a basic class in simple economics. You have NO idea what you're talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A&hd=1

THe middle class has eroded. Their wages have stagnated or grow by such a small amount it has not kept up with costs. And, by the way, ALL of the middle class pays taxes. The poor do, too, just not on income below a certain level. So the IRS data is hardly skewed about this at all.

You don't give a shit about democracy. Rather, you are afraid of it. You are afraid that the majority will finally stop the redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. You are afraid that your greed can't be satiated. You want to make sure a plutocracy remains in power.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You tell me to take a simple class on economics and then you link to a contract law professor?

By definition the IRS data only includes those who pay Federal income tax. 47% of people do not pay that tax. Even then, that data set shows that the median income has grown. The census data is better and it does not use the income set but the household unit which is more accurate.

There is pressure on wages and this trend is apparent in all first world economies across the world. My guess, and this is just a guess,is that the influence of China is apparent.

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

Elizabeth Warren knows more about economics in her Pinky than you do in your entire body. The video is a university presentation of years of research into costs vs. income for the middle class. Of course you wouldn't bother to actually listed to the presentation or look at the data presented. Live in ignorance.

The influence of China? Try the influence of unfettered capitalism played by the power elite like a game of Monopoly.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Thanks for the compliment, I am sure Elizabeth Warren is a terrific contract lawyer and I am sure she thinks she knows her economics but she did not study nor teach economics.

I am very aware of her opinions and don't agree with her. I don't believe that the American public needs to be saved from itself where we need a nanny state to tell us what financial products to buy.

And you of all people, who has called me racist, should know that eliminating credit hurts the people of color and lesser means first. Do you know how many people have had their credit cards cancelled since your democratic government passed the credit cars protection act - 7 million. How many of them are black?

She believes she is smarter than the market and the dumb middle and lower classes need to be protected. And we will pay her to do it.

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

Smarter than the market? The market is one big dumb Monopoly game, increasingly manipulated by those who own more wealth.

Warren was a bankruptcy lawyer, not a contract lawyer. But that's a detail. I have met 5 year olds with more economic knowledge than you.

And who, EVER (!!!!), said that credit was bad? You just love to make shit up. The increasing NEED for credit to cover basic expenses of life, due to massive shifts in capital from the bottom to the top is what hurts people.

(And you ARE a racist, and have demonstrated it on more than one occasion in these fora.)

[Removed]

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

But where's the logical end of this reasoning? I mean, if 30% constitutes "taking" money from others (unjustly), then why would taking 1% be any different? It may be less from a numerical perspective, but it's still taking from one for the potential benefit of another. Inversely, if we're to justify progressive taxation under some moral rule, then where is the logical ceiling?

In other words, we have to admit this is an abstract question, one which a utilitarian philosophy is much better equipped to handle.

In the first instance, we may be asking ourselves the wrong questions. This argument is often framed something like this. Is it just when some people enjoy enormous wealth, while many others languish in poverty? I'm not sure about the virtue of framing this argument comparatively. We might find it easier to ask ourselves, why can't everyone be rich?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, what is the highest percentage any person or corporation pay in taxes?

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

I think we can make an easy case for reversing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, what is the highest percentage any person or corporation pay in taxes?

[-] 1 points by donOld (6) 2 years ago

The solution to our present monetary & economic problems is, as John Kenneth Galbraith said... "so simple that the mind is repelled by it".

Here it is... http://www.financialParty.ca

enjoy

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

It would never work because the buying power of money would plummet. You would not be able to make enough money to buy goods because they would be too expensive.

[-] 1 points by donOld (6) 2 years ago

Better go back and read it again, you didn't get it. The price of everything and anything is only the labor hours that it took to make it. It's not going to take any longer to make things so prices won't rise. In fact the opposite is true, they will finally stabilize.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

A new tax idea for capital gains. 95% of stock capital gains buys/sells are just gambles - yes - some are based on knowledge and some are stupid - just like the horses or poker.
These transactions do not benefit the companies or the nation - they don't create jobs or a product. Why should an investor pay lower tax than a worker?
BUT
There is a different kind of investment- If a company sells its own stock to raise money to specifically hire or buy American - THIS HELPS AMERICA.
and when the buyer - WHO IS INVESTING IN AMERICA - sells the stock there should be NO capital gains tax.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

They would benefit the person who made the investment. Do you put any money into a bank CD or savings account for interest? Why not? Because they don't pay anything for you to keep it there. You make .5% for a year. The same thing would happen if your plan for taxing stock purchasing and selling were to be adopted. No cash for private businesses, no businesses.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I'm pointing out that people gamble on many th ings and gambling should be income taxed. But if the "gamble" directly helps America by stimulating the economy with hires and buying American, we should give them a tax preference - like we do with home ownership loans ( which should be capped )

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Why don't we all just give everything to the goverment and call it a day.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Really?

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Why not you can't take it with you.Think of all the toys that Sam could buy with the extra cash.Just give em all your crap and apply for assistance or better yet join the Army and tell them you will work for free.Than you will be doing a real service for your corporation I mean country.

[-] 0 points by donOld (6) 1 year ago

How about NO TAXES? Impossible, you say. Not at all. Learn your history. There were no income taxes before the 1st world war. They were introduced as a "temporary measure" to help finance the war effort. AT THE SAME TIME, the Federal Reserve was established.

Before this, the government used to issue new currency itself and spend it into the economy. This is why income taxes were not necessary. The right to do this independently from the banks is what the American revolution was really all about. But despite the warnings of the founding fathers, the puppet politicians of the banks gave away the financial sovereignty so many had died for, and implemented the Federal Reserve Act. The nation would now have to rent its money from a privately-owned central bank.

War is very expensive, so a huge amount of debt accumulated. In order to pay the interest, a perpetual income tax was needed. And here we are today, fighting wars and paying taxes.

Learn the truth. Watch Aaron Russo's classic "Freedom to Fascism" here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNNeVu8wUak

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies/31russ.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Besides, you try and convince "business", that tariff's need to be re-instituted to run America and see how far you get.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26046) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Tariffs - WELL - HELL - that might just ruin off-shored work profits as the products come into the states. How Ghastly.

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

Doesnt matter. Country is going down, and the people are too busy fighting with each other to notice they are all endorsing the same assholes that are getting on the life rafts while screaming at us to run in different directions.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

... and OWS wants to give government more power. Go figure.

[-] 0 points by j91488 (14) from Menlo Park, CA 2 years ago

"Who the hell do you think donate entire wings to children's hospitals, to cultural arts centers, to new schools at universities, to medical research, to churches, etc. It is the rich, and almost exclusively the rich. Why? Because they have the money to do so and they care. I live around a lot of rich people, some are my friends, even though I am not particularly "rich". I got an invitation today to a friend's 50th birthday party, and in lieu of any gifts, it asked for everyone to bring a bag full of food for donation, they wanted at least 100 bags of food." because if they didnt donate to charity and hospitals and what not, then they would get taxed more. thats their motivation

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Bullshit! You are full of bullshit. Your post is a lie.

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

cynic. you think it's all about the tax write off? did john harvard get a write off? did stanford get one? did carnegie? did elhu yale? these schools were started and endowed long before the was an income tax,..........in some cases ,.......before there was a United States of America.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Those people didn't get a write-off because there wasn't one. Had there been, I'm sure they would've taken it. However, you guys are correct in that the write-off isn't the only motivation. With some, the write-off is the only thing, with others (especially the super-rich) it's just an added bonus for doing a good thing. That's the problem with blanket statements, they rarely apply to every situation.

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

One would think so...

[Removed]

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

Here's the fair way.

If citizen X has to work X months to pay his taxes, federal, state and local, so then should citizen Y, even if citizen Y is the CEO of J P Morgan.

Now that would be the fairest way to tax.......................:)

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, you are also for raising taxes on the 99%. There are almost 50% in the lowest bracket that pay no taxes at all and many actually get a refund after they have paid no money into the system.... http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/true-or-false-over-50-do-not-pay-income-tax

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

You make the same mistake countless others have made; the idea that just because the lowest income brackets pay nothing in FEDERAL taxes means they pay nothing into the system. You have to account for all taxes; sales tax, taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, etc. The idea that the poor pay nothing in taxes is absurd.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Very good. You see my point. It would be much better if we support a reduction of the amount of everyone who pays federal taxes. Great post Gno!

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Exactly. Personally, I think eliminating many of the loopholes for the rich is a far better way to go than the tired old 'tax the rich' mantra.

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

Were the hell did I say that???

What I said was, that if the guy working at KFC works 6 months to pay his taxes, then so should the head of GE. Regardless of how much money either of them made.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The guy at KFC probably pays nothing in taxes.

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

It could be done, based on a median.

Use your head.

[-] 0 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

Not to mention that the guy who worked his way up to the top didn't do so by working part time. The guy at KFC would have to triple his hours (thus triple his pay) to equal the amount of hours many economic leaders put in. Then that KFC guy might actually have to pay into the federal system rather than simply take from each April.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

You have no proof that "economic leaders" work that many hours.

Stop sucking these guys Koch and revering them as some sort of superior species. They're just people. Some bought stocks and got lucky. Some won the sperm lottery. Some even did it the "hard way" and built up a business over several years. But they're all the same combinations of organs that we are.

[-] -1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

No matter the tax rate the revenue is always around 18% its weird how it works like that

[+] -4 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, then why would anyone support increasing the tax rate beyond that?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

idk we have pretty normal tax rate and a good one there is just ways to get out of paying it that are bad.

also by the look of things people don't want others to realize that raising the taxes doesn't work. this explains it better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ucoP4-06O7M

http://www.learnliberty.org/

[-] -1 points by aflockofdoofi5 (-8) 2 years ago

No one will like this truth but the real money in taxation is in the middle class and lower class. We like to "soak the rich" but that only goes so far. If liberals want to grow the size of government, they will have to tax the lower and middle class, there is simply not enough income in the higher brackets to pay for all the big government progressives want.

Thats why Obama is a coward. Had he tacked on a simple payroll tax, VOILA!, the public option is born.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Raising taxes on "the rich" raises the cost of living for the rest of us.

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

NO! Top tier (trickle down) tax cuts are a PROVEN failure. Listen to Raygun and Buffet, bus drivers and secretaries should not EVER pay more taxes than millionaires. The price of a civilized society is taxes, the price of getting rich in our civilized society is HIGHER taxes.

Let's bring back Eisenhower tax rates and the Glass Steagall Act, apply the Volker Rule, outlaw offshoring and war profiteering, end corporate subsidies and welfare, remove the high income caps and double capital gain taxes. HELLO!!

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You are clearly uninformed.

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

Understand, Righties call indoctrination and belief (cult brainwashing) being "INFORMED."

FDR Has Words About Taxes - 1936. 'Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle'

http://gocl.me/o11tVH By Gordonskene

FDR - that small and well-upholstered minority who didn't want to pay for a civilized society.

In keeping with our current preoccupation with taxes, the deficit and spending, I thought I would run an address President Franklin Roosevelt gave while campaigning for re-election in 1936.

Seems the subject of taxes has been with us for a very-very long time. And it also seems the ones doing the most complaining haven't changed very much in the past 200 or so years.

Comforting, I suppose. But you'd think by now it would get a little tired.

In 1936 though, FDR had a few choice words nestled in what has become a timeless address.

President Roosevelt: “In 1776 the fight was for Democracy in Taxation. In 1936 there is still the fight. Mister Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said ‘taxes are the prices we pay for civilized society’. One sure way to determine the social conscience of a government is to examine the way taxes are collected and how they are spent. And one sure way to determine the social conscience of an individual is to get his tax reaction. Taxes, after all are the dues we pay for the privilege of membership in an organized society. And as society becomes more civilized government, national and state and local, is called on to assume more obligations to its citizens. The privileges of membership in a civilized society are vastly increased in modern times. But I am afraid we still have many who still do not recognize their advantages and want to avoid paying their dues.”

Tax breaks for the wealthy were a concept well in place by the time Hoover was President.

FDR: “To divide fairly among the people the obligation to pay for these benefits has been a major part of our struggle to maintain Democracy in America. Ever since 1776, that struggle has been between two forces; on the one hand there has been a vast majority of citizens who believe the benefits of democracy should be extended and who are willing to pay their fair share to extend them. And on the other hand, there has been a small but powerful group which has fought the extension of these benefits because they did not want to pay a fair share of their cost. That was the lineup in seventeen hundred and seventy-six and it’s the lineup today. And I am confident that once more, in nineteen thirty-six democracy in taxation will win. Here is my principle, and I think it’s yours too; Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”

So hearing this now and knowing it was from the dim-distant past of 1936, it makes the current situation and posturing that much more absurd. Unfortunately if it were only absurd it would be laughed off. But it has become deadly serious business in the ensuing years.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Great comment.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Yet it seems the more the government has increased the tax burden, the more uncivilized we become. We have tried more taxes", I believe now is the time to try less taxation and less spending. I believe that it is not government that makes us more civilized, it is a belief in a higher power that will ultimately judge your actions here on Earth.

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

Not surprisingly you have it backwards. We've "tried" (been raped by) the trickle-down scam and it has bankrupt the country redistributing our wealth to the top 1%. From the Great GOP Depression to the Great GOP Recession the repetitious Republicon trick of appeasing the greedy rich fails every time. (See FDR clip above.)

Huckster your Elmer Gantry bible-thumping Armageddon and divine redistribution to your GOP zombie cult members.

Register and Vote! Register and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I give. i get it. You trust the government. i don't. There is no company that can COMPELL me to buy their crap, the government wants to COMPELL me to buy the crap they want me to buy, abide by the stupid regulations they want to abide by, take my property to buy the property they think they and I need, and do it all from the point of a gun.

There is no private company that can do that.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Bullshit. The "Leave it to Beaver" era in the 40s and 50s were the most morally conservative this country has ever seen, and the tax rates were MUCH higher.

[-] -1 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

lol! Who will pay for soldier and bombs if we lower taxes on anyone? We won't be able use our government to fight wars for .001% if we lower taxes! The soldiers will come home with all the glorious manners they learned in the military and no job and no paycheck, yikes! Besides we all know our politicians are well paid enough to funnel our tax dollars into serving the interests of the top .001% and what will happen is the tax dollars spent to help the elderly, the poor, and the children would be cut. Save me $1000 but let my grandma try to live on beans on rice? You GO! Keep trying though. I still have this one teeny tiny braincell left, its saying, "troll baby, troll baby" I wonder why? You know those dolls are so ugly they are cute!

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

But the facts show there would be very little money raised by increasing the taxes on "the rich", but history shows over and over that lowering taxes increases the tax receipts collected. Obama himself has acknowledged this fact and said raising taxes on the rich is about fairness and not about increasing the money taken in as revenue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4iy2OfScQE

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Further more anyone who has a big loan they can't pay off in less than seven is a slave to their debts. Leaving the farm and heading off to the city means many can't grow their own food, they lost the knowledge to take care of themselves. They became slaves depending on the benevolence of their government and of their employers. Now that they have taken out the loans and swallowed the modern life hook line and sinker we find the holder of our debts less than benevolent. The fancy apartments are gilded cages. Most people stand in line to sell themselves into modern slavery. They don't mind it as long as they think their trinkets are entertaining. The problem is the slave owners care less and less about benevolence. They don't really need you anymore, they are already wallowing in money and resources but you now need them.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

America could recover from anything and everything. Banking and our economy is just a game. People survived without TV AC and iphones. If it is slavery or poverty I am offered, what do I choose? Sadly I want to have my life back, I want quality time with my kids to pass on morals, values and knowledge. I want a simple life not a heart-attack. I don't want to be worth more, already am worth more than currency. I don't want to sell my life away hour by hour to survive. I have seen the trinkets and I'm not an addict.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

They are lobbying for tons of subsidy dollars and getting fat and stupid if they think for a second unfairness is beneficial to anyone. Of course its not beneficial because the .001% simply hide their money and refuse pay a fair tax. How does that increase revenue? It doesn't, unless you ban their products and companies from collecting a dime from the American people by making and ENFORCING those laws. Want your money off shore, pack it up and move. Create a nitch in the market for people want to play fair.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, that does not explain why you do not support lowering the taxes on the 99%.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Yes it did. Ethics are more important than profits. The ends do not justify the means. You are asking me to sign off on a policy that would be used by bought off politicians to continue to funnel tax dollars to the richest people lobbying them and in the same breath justify cuts to the already mediocre and pitiful spending on the poor. Poor that are poor because modernization and the hijacking of the feminist movement and globalization created a surplus of workers and effectively reduced the value of human life across the board. I swear I still have a braincell left and I do not wish to see my grandmother reduced to eating beans and rice after a lifetime of service to humanity so I can get a dinky tax break that would be used to justify twice as much being taken out of social spending.

[-] 3 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Dollar for dollar, the masses would be harmed enormously, not helped by your proposed policy. Also consider you asking me to let the rich decide the amount of tax they wish to pay. They might just want the masses to work 18 hour days for a sack of rice or starve to death and you want to ensure the possibility becomes a reality by undermining any programs like food stamps that protect the people from gross exploitation by cutting off the government from any means to fund social programs to protect its people. You are saying, "I am going to rape you, toss you a nickle and call the police and have you arrested for prostitution, how about it?" I'm crazy not stupid.