New Democratic Tax Platform - Tax the living shit out of the rich.

[mikelewis]

No tax for the poor. If you make an annual income that is at or below poverty line, you pay $0 dollars. The middle-income families will bear moderate to low taxes.

If you are rich, be prepared to pay for this catastrophe you have visited upon us. You will pay for the healing of our military both in body and soul. You will pay for rebuilding our schools and providing a safe learning environment for our children's future. You are going to pay for our health care and cleaning up our environment. You are going to pay for your employees. You are not going to take their pensions or cut their pay. (GM, this means you too.) You are going to pay for Katrina Recovery and you are going to build a levee system that will be known as the 8th Wonder of the World. You are going to pay for giving us George W. Bush and for that, you're going to pay out the nose.

[Fovea]

1. Let's roll!

Bring back the 50's tax progressivity.

[Ishoutandscream2]

121. Amen! It worked then, and it would surely work now!

nt

[Just Me]

145. The "fee" for predatory greed/capitalism is taxes to care for those,...

,...being exploited by them.

Yes? :bounce:

[niyad]

2. works for me!!

[NanceGreggs]

3. EXCELLENT!

:yourock:

[Jim Sagle]

4. Fuckin' A. K & R.

[punpirate]

5. It worked pretty well from...

... 1936 through 1983. Ever since then, all means of income for the wealthy (and corporations) have been taxed less and less and, combined with greatly excessive defense spending, is the primary reason for the total debt we have now. It's really that simple.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. I can dig it!

Can you imagine how many votes they'd get if they proposed a REAL middle class tax cut? Also allow rich people to avoid taxes if, and only if, they invest in job creation HERE in the U.S.

[mikelewis]

16. Democratic Robin Hoods of the 20th Century

Robbing from the rich and feeding, housing and caring for the poor. I wonder if this could sell.

[Joe Chi Minh]

67. It is not robbery. It never belonged to them in the first place.

In this corporatist context, they are like a cancer in the medical sense. Growing out of control at the expense of the host body.

[madokie]

32. by creating jobs here some would argue that would be hurting

the poor in the other countrys. If we had a strong job market paying honest wages we would be in a much better place to help the poor throughout the world. American citizens actually care, not the fatcats, just right now we're tapped out.

[mikelewis]

34. That's why our next initiative will be Fair Trade not Free Trade...

In this new system, we will trade freely with those who set up thier laws to treat thier workers fairly. A country that supports a living wage, safe working conditions and health care will be a trading partner with the U.S. Any who exploit thier workers and ruin the land, sea or air will be shunned and no business will be done between us and them. If they do not support human dignity in trade, we do not want to deal with them. We will no longer trade in blood money.

[madokie]

35. I sure am enjoying reading this thread

Its so easy to visualize a wonderful and caring peoples of the world.

[mikelewis]

36. It makes sense though doesn't it - How can we trade with countries...

fairly whose people can't afford to buy our products? How can we call it Free Trade when it exacts such a high price on our society? There can be no Free Trade without Fair Trade.

[madokie]

38. Sure it does, it all sounds good and I am going to work my ass

off toward achieving that goal. Somehow I believe that this struggle we have for our governments sanity will pay giant dividends.

[davekriss]

134. milelewis I like the way you think! (eom)

Sign me up!

[Fovea]

82. Absolutely correct

a robust working and middle class economy will not only be better able to help nations with an improving economy, but they are more likely to insist on humane labor laws.

Look at the effect we are having on WallyWorld.

[slay]

7. Not just yeah - hell yeah!

I couldn't agree more. This George W. Bush bulllshit that has been forced upon the entire country so that the rich can now be super-rich while the poor get totally screwed will not soon be forgotten or forgiven! Nor should it! :mad:

[Newsjock]

8. 91% top marginal income tax rate from 1951-1964

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

... on incomes above $200,000 (not adjusted for inflation).

If it was good enough for Eisenhower, surely it's good enough for Bush*.

[Hello_Kitty]

20. It created massive investment. "Trickle Down" is b.s. !! n/t

[1932]

40. There were so many exemptions and credits, nobody paid that rate.

BTW.

[rinsd]

58. Yup....

When Kennedy lowered the tax rates part of what the bill had changed definitions so money was harder to hide. Revenues skyrocketed which is always cited by GOPers as evidence that lowering taxes increases collections. As usual they hear only the part they want to listen to.

[Joe Chi Minh]

72. But it's a good start. And Admins can learn from past mistakes.

No doubt by Kennedy's time, the system had degenerated a good deal, but there is absolutely no question that, in real terms, the net tax collected from the individuals and corporations would have been significantly higher during those decades - just as the ratio of income of the top and median earners in companies was much smaller. Another thing that needs to be redressed for a healthy society. You can be sure that the Republicans have never stopped belly-aching about taxes, as long as taxes have been levied on them.

How about this from Hunter S Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72:

"Hear me, people: We have now to deal with another race - small and feeble when our fathers first met them, but now great and overbearing. Strangely enough they now have a mind to till the soil and the love of possessions is a disease with them. These people have made many rules that the rich may break but the poor may not. They take their tithes from the poor and weak to support the rich and those who rule"

Chief Sitting Bull, speaking at the Powder River Conference in 1877.

HST:

If George McGovern had a speech writer half as eloquent as Sitting Bull, he would be home free today - instead of 22 points behind and racing round the country with both feet in his mouth. The Powder River Conference ended ninety-five years ago, but the old chief's baleful analysis of the White Man's rape of the American continent was just as accurate then as as it would be today if he came back from the dead and said it for the microphones on prime-time TV. The ugly fallout from the American Dream has been coming down on us at a pretty consistent rate since Sitting Bull's time - and the only real difference now, with Election '72 only a few weeks away, is that we seem to be on the verge of ratifying the fallout and forgetting the Dream itself".

True since most Americans are now further from the possibility of achieving the said dream than the inhabitants in most other advanced countries. Probably with the dishonorable exception of the UK.

But neither SB nor HST missed much did they?

[Old and In the Way]

9. While we're at it....

Take 50% of our annual military spending and divert it into our infrastructure to live in a post peak oil world. That ought to throttle back our imperialistic tendencies while we invest in our future rather than the bank accounts of people like Dick Cheney. It would create a lot of real constructive (rather than destructive) jobs.

[mikelewis]

39. I'll see your 50 and raise you 75...

The additional 25% will be invested in a new Space Program with the sole purpose of spreading Democracy to other planets. The key to the survival and growth of our world demands that we expand into new lands. We are a nation built upon the concept of Manifest Destiny. Have we so easily given up on our nations charter simply because new frontiers are harder to get to? Bullocks, it's time we boldly go where no man has gone before. It's time we gathered the great minds of this world together and started populating our solar system. Out there lies treasure and land for the taking. All we need to do is simply to go claim it for our Country and our Lord. Also we need to find out if there is life out there and then we can destroy it for being Godless.

[SoCalDem]

10. First 50K is tax exempt in my plan

and gradually escalates ..SS/FICA is paid on EVERY dime earned or otherwise..The SS"crisis" goes Poof!

[mikelewis]

12. How about this compromise - federal first 50K, States up to poverty

The middle class can help support the state they live in but the Federal burden is on the 51K+ crowd.

[Lasher]

24. Amen, sister!

Right now SS taxes are incredibly regressive, and a huge chunk of revenues is going into the general fund. Repukes want to make sure none of that money is ever paid back to the SS trust fund. If they are successful in this regard, they will have given the wealthy elite a retroactive, decades-long general tax holiday, due to the taxable earnings ceiling that's about $90K right now.

[onenote]

11. specifics?

exactly what sort of tax rate and at what income levels? Hard to get on board without details...

onenote

[mikelewis]

13. Try and imagine torture - then pick the percentage rate...

What would you tax someone who did this?



Now stare at this picture and then pick a tax rate for those who make over $200,000 a year, the one's who paid for this. I'm talking punative taxes here. Taxes that hurt.

[onenote]

15. y'know, there are Democrats who opposed the war who make $200K

I think they should be taxed at a higher rate than is currently the law, but just because someone makes a certain income isn't grounds for blaming them for chimpy's torture.

onenote

[Mr.Green93]

28. Couldn't there be tax breaks for party members

who were active members before the tax enactment?

[Raksha]

14. That works for me!

The big question is, will any Democratic candidate have the guts to put it that way? Okay, maybe they can say it a LITTLE more tactfully in their campaign speeches, but not much. Basically we need to SOAK THE RICH and the corporations, because they've been stealing from us for about 20 years. So we can't back down from saying it.

[Skink]

17. Not good enough unless we start seizing some assets.

[mikelewis]

18. I agree wholeheartedly, we start with the Bush Empire....

We should immediately freeze all of his assets both here and abroad and "donate' them to the National Debt.

[anitar1]

26. Eminent Domain for the seaside home, and to be

used as a vacation spot for wounded vets from the Iraq war.

[Raksha]

19. Whenever I think about seizing assets

I always think of Halliburton first. Wonder why THAT is? :sarcasm:

Any other corporations that need to have their assets "liberated"?

[TheBaldyMan]

77. Kellogg, Brown & Root, Bechtel are two that spring to mind ...

Blackwater, Exxon, Unocal, Carlyle Group, Diebold ... there are a great many others

[AZBlue]

74. I'm behind that as long as there are specificications as to which assets

Such as: profits garnered from the war invasion in Iraq.

But, if you just want to seize assets of "the rich," in my mind I'm seeing pictures of the Nazis taking pictures off the wall...

[mainer]

96. Right. Let's start by burning houses and cutting off heads.

And maybe, oh, round up and imprison all the rich intellectuals while you're at it, the way the Red Guards did. And all that fancy schmancy art -- slash and burn that elitist filth.

You know, don't you, that this sounds scarier than ANYTHING out of a freeper's mouth.

[stevietheman]

21. It's only fair to consider a "take back".

It's only way to avoid financial catastrophe for the U.S... the rich will have no choice but to hand back their "Bush booty".

[eridani]

22. Start thinking about wealth taxes

On all assets except homesteads. That way the income tax can be lower and have a higher threshold to kick in. It could also substitute for the estate tax, which wouldn't be necessary if wealth were taxed all along.

[stickdog]

25. Yes, a 1-2% annual tax on all wealth other than homesteads would be

very appropriate until our budget is balanced and our safety net is restored.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Here ya go:

[mikelewis]

29. Our new Campaign slogan and Bumper Sticker - I like it

[converted_democrat]

47. Nice.. I like that!! n/t

[toymachines]

27. Republican tax plan: Kill the Poor

or was that the Dead Kennedys?

[mantrid]

30. Sounds good to me!

Let those who get the most out of society invest the most back in; and carry the full weight of the wars fought to serve their interests. Let those who get the least keep as much of what they have as possible, and be provided with a safety net guaranteeing them basic essential services. Sounds fair to me, but then I guess I'm just a commie dinosaur...

[mikelewis]

33. This is how Jeus would want us to run our country...

"The last shall be first and the first shall be last." Mark 20:16

If fulfills the Laborer's parable and thus fulfills God's will. Any who disagree are servants of the Devil. They are like the Hypocrites, unworthy of a righteous opinion. They should be ignored and prosecuted for the Sins of Gluttony and Greed.

[madokie]

31. Loud and clear, concise and to the point, count me in

[ProfessorGAC]

37. I'll Pass

A losing strategy for sure. Too easy to show that just the rich can't foot the bill, and the inequity of it would make dems look jealous and petty.

I'm for raising taxes across the board, progressively so, with an increase in the standard exemption and dependent deductions. But, an excessive tax rate on anybody, should not be part of a party platform.

Jealousy can make us think of some outlandish things. But, it's electorally unattractive.
The Professor

[mikelewis]

50. How un-Christian of you...

The Gospel according to Matthew Chapter 25
14
"It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them.
15
To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one--to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately
16
the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five.
17
Likewise, the one who received two made another two.
18
But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master's money.
19
After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them.
20
The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. He said, 'Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.'
21
His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.'
22
(Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, 'Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.'
23
His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.'
24
Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, 'Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter;
25
so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.'
26
His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter?
27
Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return?
28
Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten.
29
For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
30
And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'

Matthew 22:17

17
11 Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?"
18
Knowing their malice, Jesus said, "Why are you testing me, you hypocrites?
19
12 Show me the coin that pays the census tax." Then they handed him the Roman coin.
20
He said to them, "Whose image is this and whose inscription?"
21
They replied, "Caesar's." 13 At that he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."

So, are we not merely following the will of the Lord by giving more than what we got and by returning to America what is the property of America. Oh yea of little faith. If our measure is the length of our charity, then how can the rich grumble when they are harkened to the Lord? If we are a Christian Nation, then how can deny the instructions of the Lord?

[ProfessorGAC]

52. Find One Post On This Site Where I Say I'm Christian

Try your browbeating somewhere else. It's not going to work on me. There is nothing in anything you posted that suggested being unjust to rich people is any more "christian". Besides, "render unto Caesar,. . .".
The Professor

[1932]

41. Tax code doesn't need to be punitive. It just needs to be fair.

Wealth should still be a fair reward for hard work, inventiveness, risk-taking, and creating social value. However, indeed, people who benefit the most should help carry the burden at least in the same proportion as everyone else, and, ideally, marginally more than people who have less. Just carrying an equal burden would mean the wealthy would pay higher marginal rates on income -- especially income that doesn't come from labor.

[Telly Savalas]

45. Well put.

:thumbsup:

[AZBlue]

73. EXACTLY. We shouldn't be out for blood.

[eppur_se_muova]

76. Be fair to let them catch up on all the taxes they didn't pay under ** nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

90. Fairness to the Republican is punitive in his eyes.

It's a matter of congenital pusillanimity.

Remember these wide words?

"Republicans cry, Republicans bitch,
The rich are too poor and the poor are too rich."

[Atman]

42. All the robber barons built their estates under massive tax rates

Not even just the robber barons. The Carnegies, the Kennedys, the DuPont's, the Vanderbilt's...they managed to build massive industries and build huge estates, and create massive wealth, all under tax rates that would make the Brits gasp. But somehow, today, we're told that the poor little rich kids are having a tough time making ends meet, and need ALL their money, and that the functioning of the military which protects thier wealth, the hiways which carry it, the health of the workers who build it for them, should all be borne by you and I.

It is fucking disgusting. And if you mention it, Bush will tell the ignorati that you're threatening to raise THEIR taxes. It is time for the rich to give back to the country which made them rich. Because she's hurting big time.

[ProfessorGAC]

46. I'm Pretty Sure You're Mistaken

The tax rates that became essentially confiscatory all occurred long after the DuPonts, Vandebuilts, and Morgans made their money. I think the turn of the century tax rate on the rich was down around 10%. I'll have to check that, but the high taxes seemed to be a Depression, WWII, Cold War thing. (Eisenhower's 90% tax on income >$200k, for instance.)
The Professor

[Atman]

48. Let me know what you find out...

I was under the impression that the oppressive tax rates were in effect longer than that. I'll eagerly await your findings so I don't make that mistake again! Thanks.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. I'll Try To Check This Afternoon

I won't resurrect the thread. I'll PM you.
The Professor

[1932]

97. Kevin Phillips writes about this in Wealth & Democracy: after income tax

passed, and as rates increased and more people got taxed, the Rockefellers et al got wealthier and wealthier.

In the 50s when top rates got higher, the wealthy REALLY got wealthier.

[ProfessorGAC]

117. That's Not What The Poster Said

And, just because Kevin Phillips said it doesn't make it true. His analysis on that subject is flawed. That's why i've never assigned that book as required reading, although some econ profs do.

Their continued acquisition of wealth had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the existence of, or lack of, the income tax. That's a fully uncorrelated conincidence.

Rather, the explosion of the middle class in the 1920's, the rise of conspicuous consumption, and the founding of the Henry Ford type owner class (who wanted his workers to be able to afford their own products) resulted in a massive uptick in consumption that grew the economy to new heights. That's why the already rich got much richer. The existence of the income tax is fully irrelevant. I will even assume that by now, Phillips realizes he was sylogistically linking the two.
The Professor

[1932]

130. Phillips's point is that the rich protested income tax and

after it was passed it didn't inhibit their accumulation of wealth in the slightest. And my memory might be incorrect, but I believe that he points out that we had the highest marginal rates in the 50s, which was also the same decade the fortunes of the wealthy increased tremendously. He's not correlating tax rates and wealth accumulation. He's merely pointing out that the arguments the wealthy made against the income tax, and their own fears about the influence it would have on their accumulation of wealth, were unfounded, as demonstrated by the evidence.

I've never heard of any economist assigning Phillips's book to an economics class. However, I've seen his book cited by social and cultural historians whom I respect (off the top of my head: Lisa Duggan's Twilight of Equality). It's my impression that his scholarship is very well-respected.

[TahitiNut]

51. Top Marginal Federal Individual Income Tax Rates

Remember, the income tax originated in the 20th century ... around 1916.

[Sparkman]

53. Nice chart...for 2006 it shows dividend income tax jumps from 16 to 35%...

[TahitiNut]

54. That's later than 2006 and not assured. It's part of the "temporary"

... tax-cut package passed in 2001(?) that had a sunset provision due to the "balanced budget" rules. The Reich Wing is attempting to pass (has passed?) tax "reforms" that would elminate the income tax on dividends altogether.

The Reich Wing wants a "plantation economy" where income from one's OWN labor is taxed, but the profits from someone else's labor are either not taxed or is taxed at lower rates. This is, of course, the most unjust tax policy in our nation's history.

"Lawmakers in the House and Senate are now debating legislation to extend temporary tax concessions for capital gains and dividend income. The tax loopholes, enacted in 2003 and scheduled to expire at the end of 2008, allow capital gains and dividend income to be taxed at a top rate of 15 percent—less than half of the 35 percent top tax rate on wages and other income. If these provisions expire, as current law provides, dividends will once again be taxed at the same rates as other income, while the top capital gains tax rate will revert to 20 percent."
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/cg1105.pdf

[Lilith Velkor]

55. Damn

I remember hearing rich guys whine about paying 50% back in the 80s. I say bring back the 1950s tax rate, instead of the '50s sexism they all want so bad.

Edit: clArity :donut:

[ProfessorGAC]

61. Thanks, Nut

I knew that wasn't right, but didn't have data handy. However, the posters original point is not completely off base. Lots of people accumulated TONS of wealth in that period of 1946 to 1961. While part of the Ike administration was economically stagnant (not the good old days most like to think), those taxation levels could not have been the only reason, since SOMEONE was making money.

At the same time, i believe there is an inherent injustice in taxing at 90%. NOw, if we could only close enough loopholes, deferrals and deductions so the people at 33% would actually pay that much, we'd be better off. (Actually i think 36 - 37.5% on everything, from any source, over $500,000 would be a revenue enhancer that would not form any drag on the economy.)

Thanks again.
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

64. Tax Rates have NEVER stopped wealthy people from becoming wealthier ...

... or wanting to. The wailings and moanings of the beleaguered wealthy have persisted for centuries. Despite their lamentations about entitlements (the basis of all wealth and privilege) offered to the poor, we have never seen a diminution in the number of wealthy in this country.

I personally feel a maximum income tax rate (maybe of 40%) for income resulting from one's own labors should be lower than a maximum income tax rate (maybe of 60%) for income resulting from someone else's labor. Sadly, we've only seen that once in our country, and only for a short time.

[ProfessorGAC]

66. If We Minimized Needless Adjustements Of Income

I think a maximum of 35% on earned and 42 (20% higher) on unearned would generate about $2.6 trillion dollars even if corporate taxes were unchanged. Buh-bye deficit.
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

78. I'll go along with that .. with a 10% "war tax" on the top bracket.

... whenever we have any military personnel receiving combat pay. :evilgrin: (Since declaring war has become "quaint.")

I have long-standing suspicions that Adjusted Income is the IRS's way of masking the enormously preferential treatment some kinds of income receive, as well as masking the true income distribution. Their disclosure data is pervasively arranged by AGI and Total Income is very difficult for me to obtain and use for my own (VERY primitive) statistical analyses.

[ProfessorGAC]

79. I Like That One.

War Tax! That's a capital idea. (Ain't i punny?)
The Professor

[cascadiance]

124. Yup call it a tax rate CORRECTION

when moving it back to 90%+ as a means of correcting the imbalance for the last 20 years. We can say that the 90%+ rate will be temporary for the next 20 years and then bring it down to 70% like Kennedy did in the 60's or some leveling off of it if we see a restoration of the middle class and everyone basically having a "living wage", without having to work three jobs, etc. like many have to do. Get back to having the 40 hour work week providing enough for people to live upon.

Another thing to do is to pull out of our NAFTA agreement that gives the WTO authority to reverse our laws if these laws foster "unhealthy competition" or whatever the corporate shills that crafted that agreement wanted to name it. Say we won't reenter this agreement unless they ALSO put in place that the WTO has the authority to shut down markets if labor laws aren't also fair to provide a living wage for those making products (which ALSO fosters unhealthy and uncompetitive economic competition). Now that we have so many multinational corporations, we need to help labor organizations also to globalize and in some cases perhaps have global strikes in cases where multinationals are assaulting markets in their "race to the bottom" for cheap labor.

[TheBaldyMan]

43. from each according to ability, to each according to need.

that idea floats my boat. K&R'd

[Joe Chi Minh]

91. It is also a paraphrase of St Paul's words, I believe, in

one of his Epistles. Something like, "The rich man did not have too much, nor the poor man, too little."

[TheBaldyMan]

98. IIRC my quote is Proudhon

I like the St. Paul quotation as well. I wonder what the RW Fundies would make of it?

[mikelewis]

109. They'd call it heresy and condemn us to hell...

Just like the Hypocrites of old.

[Loonman]

44. Middle class tax cut

No Administration has ever delivered on a tax cut for middle and working class folks.

[Marr]

56. But- but- they're the most *productive* Americans!

:sarcasm:

[Sparkman]

57. Lower taxes are better for us all, AFTER we provide for the welfare of all

Let's not get stuck into a "tax & spend" liberal cubical. Our rhetoric NEEDs to include limits on our taxation philosophy, even for the wealthy liberals and WR'ers, BECAUSE in many sectors of government there is MUCH excess.
1) Salaries for senators & congressmen, and their top aides.
2) Pork like bridges that go nowhere & Bradley Fighting carts that only benefit war profiteers.
3) Government subsidies to U.S. Drug manufacturers who have huge profits.
4) Foreign Aid excesses like Nicaragua Contras and Columbian Military "drug" oil pipeline patrol.
5) Domestic surveliance of Quakers, students, anti-war activists.

can we generate lists of PORK glutons to expose for TAX reduction to accompany any rate table change

[Lilith Velkor]

59. Are you hungry? Eat the rich!

Are you horny? Fuck the rich (but use a condom)!
Are you cold? BURN the rich!




bwahahahaha! :bounce:

[SammyWinstonJack]

60. Good luck with that! Taxes are only for the little people.

:sarcasm:

[Sparkman]

63. $8 per $100 tax on clothing,soap necessities= Hi cost for poor, Lo to rich

Isn't it interesting that Republicans want NO income taxes, but high sales taxes to fund government.
These regressive tax advocates would burden the poor with tax on everything they buy, which means a wealthy family would pay tiny percentages on their total income, and poor families would pay relatively huge percentages of their taxes.
THEN, the wealthy want to eliminate inheritance taxes. As it is now, $1.6 million of inheritance from estates are exempt from taxation for a married heir. This means that the U.S. is continuing the tradition of the American Aristocracy, who retains the reins of power and wealth like a Kingdom.

[oneoftheboys]

62. Yeah, right...

You could confiscate every penny from the rich and still not have enough money to accomplish one thing on your list.

[eppur_se_muova]

119. Planning to stay long? nt

[oneoftheboys]

126. I don't know. Are you?

[stepnw1f]

65. I'll Get Behind This One

Why not.... fuck em.

[Strawman]

68. Lets make it retroactive to 2001 while we're at it.

Works for me.

[maxsolomon]

69. oh jeez, now we must "heal" our bloated military?

how about we cut their budget in half, make them perform their mission of DEFENSE of the nation, not OFFENSE for our multinational corporate overlords, and the resulting savings to the budget means EVERYONE ELSE GETS A TAX CUT, the rich keep theirs, & the deficit goes down?

[yurbud]

70. I would put it in a nicer way: windfall war profits tax and a surtax for

any profits that result from a military intervention.

[yurbud]

71. get corporations too

[Old and In the Way]

75. I keep hearing Republican pols say Democrats have no ideas

Seems to me, we have a lot of ideas that'll change our country....I think when the worm turns, the RW of this country will see a backlash of liberal/progressive ideas that'll make their head spin. They have planted the seeds of their own demise...and we may be a better country, long term, for experiencing the criminal ideals of the Republican Syndicate. The Bush43 legacy will be the yardstick to measure failed leadership for centuries to come.

[Herstal]

80. Bad idea.

Confiscatory taxation is a good way to punish entrepreneurs and stifle investment. Fuck that shit.

[ieoeja]

84. Right, because when people pay high taxes.

They stop wanting to make money.

No, wait a second. That didn't make any sense whatsoever, did it?

[Herstal]

99. Wrong.

When investing, people do a risk v. reward analysis. If the potential reward is much lower due to confiscatory taxation policies, then the investor is much less likely to take the risk. Elementary, isn't it?

[mom cat]

81. That would be a small start to rectify the way those leeches have

been sucking us dry for years. Make um pay.

[BigBearJohn]

83. Holy crap. Can you IMAGINE if this came true? PLEASE GOD!

[buddysmellgood]

85. We need to tax transfer of money. Any time anyone moves money from

one account to any other account to pay for something, it gets a .1 percent tax. This way, everyone pays, no exceptions. The people who move the most money pay the most. They use the economy the most so that is fair. No loopholes, no exceptions. This will replace all other taxes.

[Initech]

86. Now THIS is a tax plan I can get behind!

I make just slightly above minimum wage as it is ($10 / hr) and I get gouged every paycheck by at least $100 - $150 for taxes (and in '04, I only got $7 back! :grr:).

I say the Dems should go for it!

[iconoclastNYC]

87. Does that include all taxation or just income taxes

Don't forget all the stealth taxes. Sales tax, liscence fees, etc...etc.

How are you going to deal with "This is class warefare?"

[mainer]

88. Is this a freeper thread? To make us look like idiots?

You all understand, don't you, that such a tax would target our BLUE STATE BASE of the well-educated, the intellectuals, and the liberal Northeasterners? You do realize that many people in New York (ardent Democrats) make $100,000 and more? You do realize that the Republican base is, in fact, in lower-income red states? If you're trying to punish the GOP voter for bringing on Bush and the war, why are you REWARDING the redneck voters in Kansas?

Every time I see a thread like this, pushing for class warfare, I shudder to think of how many GOPers are giggling in glee and sending their friends over for a look-see at what the nutty DUers are saying.

Anyone who advocates for income taxes above a 50% rate is courting economic -- and political -- disaster.

[Joe Chi Minh]

92. You dumbo! The blue state intellectuals and liberal

Northeasterners are by definition reasonable fair-minded people. If they're not, they're pseuds and bums. As a matter of simple fact, the rich have NEVER been appropriately, i.e. sufficiently highly taxed in any country. Although Japan's incredible economic post-war growth was in large part due to MacArthur's imposition of a very modest ratio between the income of the top corporate earners and the lowest. Go back to sleep, there's a good chap.

And you people have the gall to pronounce on the likelihood of economic failure of resorting to different policies to yours!!!

[mainer]

95. I'm a blue-state liberal.

And I don't mind paying more taxes -- that's why I vote Democratic.

But then I come here and hear folks ranting: "Oh, let's tax the HELL out of everyone who makes more than ... well, more than ME! Let's get them at 75%! 90%!"

Do you have any idea how that sounds to us blue-state liberals?

The bluest states also have the highest incomes. New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California -- are you saying we should SCREW them all because you think they voted for BUSH?

So which liberal's money should we confiscate first? Barbra Streisand's? George Soros? Because what I am hearing here is not about taxation. It's rage against anyone with money, regardless of their political leanings.

I am trying my damned best to raise money for the Democratic party. And I've found incredibly generous, high-earning donors who are giving thousands of dollars toward a party that they KNOW is going to tax them at a higher rate, because they are fair people who care about this country.

Then I come on this board and see a thread like this that plays into every stereotype that rednecks have about us. That we are communists who want to take everyone's money and redistribute it.

That's why I think this is a thread designed to delight freepers.

If we have such scorn for generous liberals, then the Democratic Party should stop taking their checks.

[mantrid]

115. So you continue to argue that the rich should not be heavily taxed

because they're such generous Democrats (funny philosophical basis for a taxation system anyway, I must say), whilst refusing to acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of rich people vote republican?

I'd say you're the one propping up "redneck" stereotypes about the Democrats by giving support to the myth that the Democrats are the party of the "Liberal elite", when in the fact the bulk of their support, in contrast to that of the GOP, is working class.

And noblesse oblige has always been a poor substitute for social justice.

[mainer]

128. "Heavily taxed" on this thread seems to be 75% - 95%

So someone who's earned $100,000 will get to take home, oh, $5,000 of it. And you consider that fair? You don't consider that robbery?

I don't care how liberal and earnestly fair a voter is. When you take 75%- 95% of his income, he is going to scream.

When you only get to take home five cents out of a dollar you've earned, most of us would prefer to forego the extra effort. That's a wonderful way to destroy productivity.

[Joe Chi Minh]

135. No. That kind of band, at least in the UK, applied to the top

layer, i.e. it was applied to earnings above a very handsome level, thank you very much. Tax rates on a rich individual were graduated.

[liberalpragmatist]

141. Well, not exactly

When the top marginal income tax rate was 90%, that meant that 90% of income above a certain level was taxed. So if $100,000 was the boundary of the top marginal, and someone earned $200,000, they would have $110,000 left (although other taxes would probably eat that down too).

Personally, I think a 75-95% tax rate is extreme. But I think a top marginal of something between 40% and 50% would be progressive and fair.

[mainer]

142. I'm in the top bracket. And I'd accept a 50% tax bracket

I think it's fair. Painful, but fair. But anything higher? I'd fight you tooth and nail. So would all the high-earning Democrats I know. It'd turn us all away from our lifelong love of the Democratic party.

I was reacting to the overzealous bunch here who were calling for 90% rates. And yes, I understood that there was an allowance below a certain level -- some were suggesting you get to keep your first $50,000.

Even so, at a 90% bracket, if you earn 200,000 on paper (and come on, some people DO earn that because of special talents and long hours) then you'd take home -- with that $50,000 allowance -- about $60,000, tops.

If your skills are particularly unique, and you earn on paper $500,000, your net income would be ... $95,000.

How does this encourage ANYONE to acquire unique skills?

I have a job that requires pretty unique talents. That can't be outsourced. And I can tell you, if for all the extra effort I only made $10,000 more, I'd as soon take a long vacation and screw the work.

[liberalpragmatist]

147. Right, and I wasn't suggesting anything higher

I don't think extreme tax increases on upper tax brackets are necessary or even fair. Personally, I'd favor restoring tax rates to what they were under Clinton, maybe slightly higher. I don't know nearly enough about tax policy, but I would, of course, favor simplifying it. Close loopholes, perhaps eliminate the payroll tax and maybe replace with a small consumption tax/value-added tax to fund greater investment in health care and education? Of course, the flip side to a value-added tax or progressive consumption tax, which is what they do in Europe, is that it does depress consumption, which may reduce overall economic growth without an attendant rise in investment.

And of course, downsize the defense budget and a number of other items, including a lot of pork-barrel spending (yes, it's actually not a huge portion of the budget, but every little bit counts).

[mantrid]

93. Lower-income earners are the most solidly Democratic section of

American society- those earning under $15,000 pa voted 63% for Kerry, those earning $15-30,000 voted 57% for Kerry.

On the other hand, those earning $200,000 or more voted 63% for Bush, those earning $150-200,000 voted 58% for Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

The Democratic base is the working class, exactly the people who would benefit from the tax structures being discussed here. Accusing those who support such a structure of being freepers is therefore pretty damned rich if you ask me. I prefer to hold beliefs because I think they are right, not because the loathsome ranks of the GOP approve of them. They don't dictate my agenda.

[JerseygirlCT]

143. Amen

Not every rich person is a Rep. Nor is every rich person evil.

Nor is it the wealthy person's fault that the current regime has tilted the tax system so deeply in their favor -- any more than it is any single person's fault.

This sort of thing really makes me shake my head.

Think about people like Buffet and Bill Gates' dad -- they've been speaking quite publicly against Bush's tax policy.

There are plenty of wealthy people who believe they ought to pay their fair share.

This shouldn't be as simplistic as class warfare.

[manic expression]

89. YES

I cannot agree more! It's time for JUSTICE, not exploitation and inequality.

A fine post.

[Cats Against Frist]

94. You already don't pay taxes if you work below the poverty line

In fact, if you have kids, you get money back. I think there shouldn't be any tax on single incomes up to $39,000 and household incomes up to $79,000. Then, tax the shit out of the rich.

[rocktivity]

100. DING DING DING! Cats Against Frist, you're our grand prize winner!

I think there shouldn't be any tax on single incomes up to $39,000 and household incomes up to $79,000. Then, tax the shit out of the rich.
I remember Al Gore saying something similar--I believe he wanted to base it on median household income, which is about $35K.

:headbang:
rocknation

[bleedingheart]

137. Actually the upper threshold of the high end of middle class is

somewhere around $120,000 a year....I could even live with that as the upper threshold...but it is those cozy millionaires like the Waltons, Dells, Gates...that I want to see bled dry...

[Lars39]

101. This just came down the pike:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2034065

[berni_mccoy]

102. The answer isn't "making the rich pay"

In general, I believe in the philosophy that the prosperous bear an obligatory burden, but the answer isn't penalizing the wealthy. Yes, they need to pay their fair share, but before you go and tax them further, consider the data (directly off the IRS Website at http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html, most recent data from 2003).

Those with an AGI of $50,000 or higher generate 86% of the tax revenue from personal income but they represent less than 38% of the population filing personal income tax returns.

Those with an AGI of $75,000 or higher generate 73% of the tax revenue from personal income but they represent less than 20% of the population filing personal income tax returns.

Those with an AGI of $100,000 or higher generate 61% of the tax revenue from personal income but they represent less than 11% of the population filing personal income tax returns.

Those with an AGI of $200,000 or higher generate 40% of the tax revenue from personal income but they represent less than 2% of the population filing personal income tax returns.

Should the wealthy pay more? Yes, the tax cuts Bush has put into place are IRRESPONSIBLE and completely favor the wealthy. These should be rolled-back. However, the real answer that brings us back to financial solid ground is FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY of the kind that CLINTON EXERCISED. CUT GOV'T SPENDING and DON'T ALLOW THE GOV'T TO BORROW MONEY. The REPUBLICANS HAVE ROBBED THE TREASURY AND THE TAXPAYERS FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. These are the people who need to be punished, not those who have succeeded financially.

[TheBaldyMan]

110. if you look at the data another way

poor people hardly pay any taxes because they are poor. It's Reaganomics to suggest that poor people are hoarding all the money.

[berni_mccoy]

112. I hope you are not implying that I am saying that about the poor

The point of my post is this: The problem isn't who is or isn't paying taxes. The problem is government spending. And when I say government spending, I'm not talking about social programs. I'm talking about pork legislature that builds billion dollar bridges to nowhere alaska or cutting a trillion dollar+ defense budget by a few billion (and we'd still spend more on military than the next 10 countries).

And if you read my post, you'll note that I said Bush's CUTS SHOULD BE ROLLED BACK.

If you ARE implying that I'm spouting something as sick as Reaganomics, you owe me an apology.

[TheBaldyMan]

116. Dear BMcC,

I did read your post before replying, I think there are two very strong themes in this thread. Firstly, the tax regime is highly regressive and secondly fiscal responsibility has gone out the window. Both of these problems need to be addressed urgently.

Read my post again, at no point did I imply anything, I state that poor people aren't taxed because they income is so low. Just because I mention Reaganomics doesn't mean that you agree with it. And re-reading my post I can't see where you'd get the idea that I imply that you do.

btw When it becomes plain that the shit has hit the fan there will be even more voodoo economics trotted out as to why the have-mores need another tax-cut and 'we all need to make sacrifices to get the economy back on its feet' mean the low and unwaged getting shafted.

[berni_mccoy]

123. I apologize...

My anit-flame shields were on full power when I posted, expecting a backlash given the previous posts in this thread. I read too much into your post.

Btw, I'm trying to dispell the voodoo economics by painting the REAL numbers on a billboard so everyone can see. I'm starting with unemployment, then moving onto the GDP, trade-deficit and finally the national debt. You can read my first installment here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x105343

[TheBaldyMan]

125. there's no need for an apology, if there is a fault it's mine ...

I should have expressed myself more clearly

[Joe Chi Minh]

136. People who make a lot of money are not being punished by

paying a lot of tax from their plenty. Poor people are punished by repressive rates of remuneration and grossly inordinate taxation on what little they are left with. Poorer people should not pay any tax, as such. Their relatively low remuneration even in times of affluence, is tax enough.

[JerseygirlCT]

144. Exactly

It is NOT so simplistic as "just collect more money from those rich people".

We've got plenty of money coming in (or did before Bush's stupid tax policy took hold). We have not been spending it wisely, and we've been borrowing like idiots.

This is rather like holding your boss up at knife-point and demanding a raise rather than not buying that new 65" television.

The defense budget is awash in pork (while soldiers lack basic necessities). Congress is on a binge of earmarking, all to secure votes back home. It's stupid, it's pointless, it's live for today and the hell with the future governance.

Taxing the life out of the wealthy will not fix that.

Smart choices that help the greatest number of people will.

[Beausoir]

103. Why is this MY fault?

What do you define as "Rich"?

I can promise that I would most definitely be in the upper income bracket by anyone's standards.

I earned my money the old fashioned way...lots and LOTS of schooling. I worked my way through college to support myself and my husband as he was in grad school.

I am an activist FOR our public school teachers. I am pro-union. I believe in reasonable gun control measures. I believe a woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body. I believe that gay people should have the same rights as my husband and I do. I recycle. I believe in global warming and I try to do my part to protect our earth.

I pay a huge portion of my income to Uncle Sam just so George Bush can drop more bombs on Iraqi wedding parties.

Why is this my fault? Why should I be the target?

[berni_mccoy]

104. It's not your fault and penalizing the successful isn't the answer

See my post 102 above.

[FredUptoHere]

106. because you have benefitted more than others...

by being a citizen of this country and utilizing it's resources to get where you are today.
and others have benefitted more than you, and they will pay more than you.
those that have benefitted less will pay less.

or perhaps you think it should be the other way around?

(btw- i'm not in total agreement with the OP's "plan"- just wanted to point out why in general, the wealthier should be expected to shoulder a higher 'burden'.

[mikelewis]

108. And then I ask, why is it my fault?

Why should I have to pay for George Bush, he did nothing to benefit me? Even though I'm sure you hated every second of it, he's done everything to benefit you. So if someone needs to pay the fee, maybe it should the one who ate the dinner.

Those who prosper from evil, still prosper whether or not they enjoyed it.

[Beausoir]

131. Well..that's just stupid. What dinner did I eat?

What has George done to "benefit" me?

I worked hard, graduated from college and then grad school...WAY before that little chimp stole the White House.

How has he benefited me? He spies on people like me. He kills my neighbor kids by sending them into a fake war. He hates my non-white children. He despises the public school teachers who teach my children. He has polluted the environment that I live in.

Tell me again...HOW has he benefited me?


Jesus. There is more to life than the almighty dollar.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. If you have more than $3.3m (1998) net worth...

you are in the top 1% of wealthiest households. You and your peers control 38% of the total wealth in the country.

There are problems that need fixed in this country and the solutions will cost money. If you are in the top 1%, then you have all of the spare cash - (about $15 trillion worth)

Sorry.

But if you're not rich and just "comfortable", then you needn't worry.

[Beausoir]

132. 3.3 MILLION???? Is that the official DU cut-off?

[lumberjack_jeff]

140. In 1998, it was the cutoff between the top 1%, who own 40% of the stuff...

...and the 99% who own the remaining 60%

19% of the people think they are in the top 1% of wealthy households and another 20% believe they will be someday. Nevertheless, only 1% really are.

And as another poster observed, the person who ate the dinner should pay the check.

If you really are rich (for the purposes of this discussion, the top 1%) then fixing the country requires leaning on you more heavily than you are accustomed.

My guess is that you're really not among the super rich. In that case, you probably are overtaxed because government relies almost exclusively on wage earners (even a lawyer or doctor is a wage earner) to meet government obligations.

[Warren DeMontague]

105. I'm with "Fair, Not Punitive"... And I'd Like To Add ONE LITTLE THING:

I'm not rich. Hardly. And I certainly don't mind paying taxes- so long as I know that the taxes are going in good, community-oriented directions. 'Kay?

But how come any time this subject comes up, no one.. no one... well, almost NO ONE ever seems to say, "yes, lets make the tax rates more fair- shift the burden away from the poor and the middle class- but PLEASE can we start making sure our money STOPS paying for the some of ridiculous bullshit that it currently does?"

I'm not just talking about the Iraq war and a Military-Industrial Budget that is twelve times bigger than God. I'm also talking about $40 Billion a year for a "drug war" aimed mostly at pot smokers. I'm talking about a grossly overswollen prison-industrial complex that mainly exists to warehouse the non-violent, mandatory minimum incarceration casualties of that war. Then you've got crony capitalism up the yin-yang, no bid contracts and Halliburton and Bechtel and Lockheed Martin and yadda yadda yadda.

We'd need a lot FEWER tax hikes-- if we got rid of all the crap.

I'm talking about spending priorities that are SO out of whack, it's positively disgusting- and if we just 'soak the rich', who is to say that all that soaked rich money won't just be blown on more of the same, like windfalls for Dubya's cronies.. and what, precisely, would make any of us enthusiastic about that?

YES lets pay off the deficit, YES lets get a SPHC system. YES lets rebuild our infrastructure, invest in alternative energy research, repair what is left of our frayed social safety net.

But PLEASE, can we stop blowing all our money on some of this ridiculous BULLSHIT, while we're at it? The FBI under AG A.G. has made fighting porn -not terrorism, but adult porn... you know, consenting adults engaged in mutually consented upon activities for other consenting adults to look at- one of their top priorities in Dubya's #2 term. Why the FUCK should ANYONE have their taxes raised to pay for that? I don't think Quigley V. Higgenbotham the IIIrd should give more of his silver-spoon inheritance in taxes if they're just going to pay for more DEA raids on Cannabis clubs and pot smoking cancer grannies, any more than I want to pay for 'em!

Don't even get me started on the millions of dollars Bush has given out to thinly-veiled religious groups to host giant stadium-filling abstinencepaloozas and teen chastity proseltyze-a-thons.

So, please- lets have a discussion about putting fairness back into the tax structure (and getting corporations to pay their fair share, which I think is the real rub) but really, maybe a slight recognition of the fact that our spending priorities -not just in what we don't pay for, but also in what we do- are currently seriously fucked would be nice, too.

[TheBaldyMan]

111. best post in the thread n/t

[Extend a Hand]

107. I really think we (Democrats) ought to start this discussion

by talking about what the Federal government should spend money on.

I think that one of the biggest problems with our current system is that there is not a clear and direct accounting of government income and expenses.

Citizens ought to have more direct input into how our tax dollars are spent.

Want an extended foreign war? well guess what congress you'll just have to levy a special tax earmarked for that particular expense.

I really think in view of the current oil situation that our tax dollars should not be subsidizing an automobile/trucking based economy. Right now when engineers assess wear and tear on highways they don't even count cars. I've read that the wear and tear from one tractor-trailer = 10,000 cars. Yet a big part of the fed subsidy for our interstate system comes from gasoline taxes. Individuals are effectively subsidizing the cost of business deliveries. This especially bugs me when I see articles where one state Congress critter wanted to tax hybrid drivers because they wouldn't use enough gas to pay for their "fair share" of the roads.

[Zinfandel]

113. Clinton did and it brought great peace & prosperity for eight years, UNTIL

George Bush's first act as president was to reverse all tax on the rich and then give the huge gigantic tax cuts to the wealthiest in this country, Bush allowed the corporations to ship jobs overseas and while most corporations pay little or no taxes and give them our taxes in subsidies (corporate welfare).

[Joe Chi Minh]

138. No. Not quite. He was hamstrung by the dark side, so that

too many people had become too poor since Nixon's day, and he would never have been "allowed" to correct it. He did his best - and what he did manage to achieve was little short of miraculous - but substantial economic redress was and still is needed.

[sweetheart]

114. Democratic tax plaform FDR + TR

Roosevelt's trust busting with FDR's creation of a middle class
half century of wealth by framing society.

[boobooday]

118. Right on.

Also, ending subsidies to wealthy corporations, and no longer allowing them to avoid paying taxes.

[ShadesOfGrey]

122. Huh???

Why so much anger towards the wealthy?

I am more fortunate than most wealth-wise and I, for one, do NOT support this bogus war! I DO support national healthcare! I am a very, VERY active environmentalist! I DO agree about company pensions. And... I did NOT support Bush!!! Even Kerry wasn't liberal enough for me!

I am fortunate enough to be able to dedicate ALL of my extra time and money to charity. Why so much anger? This post disgusts me!

[insane_cratic_gal]

127. because the wealth voted

for their tax cuts.

It's not directed at you per say but the Bush voters who wanted the tax break and Corporations who supported him.

It's socialism at it's worst.

And for the record, I'm poor so I was bit shocked by the thread myself lol...

Those who make over 200,000 should bear a bigger brunt to the finical burden. Otherwise there are no public schools worth having.. no national health care.. no responsible Corporations with a conscience for environment, we all fight for the same thing, just your bigger bracket should provide a bigger slice not a lesser one.

[Joe Chi Minh]

139. Then you are still culpably blind to the fact that you are in a

relatively small minority among the rich, and an even smaller minority among the rich who DO understand the anger people feel towards the wealthy.

Do you really think it was the poor or the middle-earners who have brought your country to this plight, or rather the plight they and the country (minus the rich) are in? I think not. Nor did they bring about the Vietnam war, nor WWII.

By adopting your position, you DO indeed support this war, and I very much hope that your VERY active environmentalism is of the same order of magnitude as the environmental destruction which your apparent blindness to the generic culprits in your society, will have contributed to.

The disgust I felt at your post soon gave way to a very sorrowful incredulity. You seem to be extraordinarily naive.

If your level of commitment to changing the structures of your society does not at least match the level of your commitment to your private charitable endeavours, then in Christian terms, you are "straining at a gnat, to swallow a camel".

I mean by changing the structures of society, instituting measures to regenerate manufacturing industry, with proper remuneration of the workers, and reintegrating the many millions of homeless and indigent people back in an economically productive, yet civilised mainstream society, correcting the hideously perverted economic bias in favor of the richest, by a sane and even rudimentarily just redistribution of the nation's revenues.

[mainer]

146. How did only 1% of the population manage to elect George Bush?

>>Do you really think it was the poor or the middle-earners who have brought your country to this plight, or rather the plight they and the country (minus the rich) are in? I think not. Nor did they bring about the Vietnam war, nor WWII. >>

You are angry at the top 1% of earners. You blame them for everything. But clearly they alone did not elect George Bush. Even if they all voted in a united bloc (and we know they didn't -- look how the rich blue states voted) the rich alone simply did not have enough votes

It was the middle-earners who elected George Bush. It was middle America who voted in George Bush.

By absolving everyone EXCEPT the rich of ALL blame, you are ignoring the problem. Middle America wasn't paying attention. They were too busy voting against gay marriage and abortion and teaching evolution in the schools. They were duped by the dazzling politics of the rightwing.

THEY cast the vast majority of the ballots. They have to take some of the blame.

[Joe Chi Minh]

148. You really are living in a fantasy world, aren't you!

Bush was not elected, for crying out loud. Kerry won with a landslide vote in support of him. Why aren't you lambasting the criminal, corporatist election fraudsters? The corporate media who have made it all possible, and continue to spew out disinformation. Dazzling politics of the right my eye. Only the dopey atheist fundies worried about evolution, and mainstream Christians can see that post-uterine SURVIVAL trumps issues such as abortion and the legalizing of homosexual unions. How is it that you seem so extraordinarily sanguine about the failure of tens of millions of your compatriots to survive. And peddle all this other nonsense? You people are shameless.

Incidentally, if less than double figures, the extremely rich malefactors comprise rather more than 1%, in most commentators' assessments. Incidentally, "malefactor" or "evil-doer" is the term used in apposition to the "the rich", in the Gospel accounts of Christ's burial. "He was buried with the rich and the malefactors". This despite Joseph of Aramathea's own decency and sincere love of Christ.

[CAcyclist]

129. Good,good good!

If the rich have to pay more taxes to fix these problems, they won't have money left over to cut mountaintops off to put their oversized McMansions on and they won't be so likely to build where there aren't services to support them.

[Clara T]

133. BRING IT!! Double Rec'd

That's right.

Tax the rich feed the poor
Stop the War

It's that simple. But why won't it be said? Is everyon (but McKinney, Conyers et al) in Congress bought and sold
Therein lies the rub.