Excuse me, but when the hell are we going to tax some fucking rich people!?!

[Lorax7844]

Sorry, if you make over 10 million dollars a year; well, it's time to buck the fuck up and give the government half. If you make over 5 million well then you can pay 40%. I just saw a thread on cutting medicaid to pay for healthcare and I say "No fucking way assholes!" It's time for the rich to pay the fuck up! I think that this should be something that we push, cause if I hear one more god damn democrat talking about cutting vital services to pay for healthcare I am going to go apeshit. Fuck that noise! IT'S TIME TO TAX THE RICH!

End Rant.

[Taitertots]

1. Half is not enough

No taxes until 100,000 a year
After 100,000 25% on everything up to 500,000
After 500,000 50% on everything up to 1,000,000
After 1,000,000 90% tax on everything else

[Jeep789]

2. Sounds good to me! nt

[Lorax7844]

113. I should add no tax exemptions. Period.

[Lorax7844]

3. Well, even 500,000 is middle class these days especially if you live in CA or NY..

I want to go after the top, I want to get the rich mother fuckers robbing us all.

[Hannah Bell]

4. They are a protected class. They own the government, after all.

[Craftsman]

58. Bingo and by both parties

[lib_wit_it]

124. Obama needs to be our Robin Hood, along with our elected Dems. Otherwise there will be no turning

back. If the robber barons continue to consolidate power, all is lost. Is it too late already?

[lysosome]

137. The robber barons had power before.

We (by which I actually, oddly, mean the Conservative republicans - TY Teddy Roosevelt) got rid of them once, we can do it again.

[WCGreen]

161. And the Media....

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. Call me low class? You are so fucking out of your mind and wrong

I live in Southern California. I live less than three hours from downtown Los Angeles. This is the view from my patio. I live at 6700 feet above sea level in a resort community called Big Bear Lake.



My fiance and I had a total income of $86,000 last year. The house we own is 2500 sq. ft. Trying to divide people into classes based on how much money they make is simply asking how much of an asshole one can be by making assumptions and generalizations.

[Lorax7844]

15. And we shouldn't tax people that make more than 5 and 10 million a year why?

I just said that it is more expensive to live in NY and CA. I didn't mean it as an insult only that $500,000 isn't what it used to be.

Stop changing the subject this is about those on the very top paying their fair share. Your view is lovely BTW :)

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. I'm not insulted. I'm laughing.

YOU said "...500,000 is middle class these days... if you live in CA..."

That's what you said. I'm damn glad to be considered to be less than middle class. My boat is in a slip just outside of the right edge of the picture. I'll be fishing tomorrow morning before most people on the west coast are even awake, and I'll be home with my limit of rainbow trout by 10 a.m.

Keep on making your generalizations about what is "middle class". I'm just glad to be outside of what you think is normal for California. My mortgage payment, not that it's anyone's business, is less than $1600 per month.

[Lorax7844]

17. you're still changing the subject, if you have an opinion on taxing the rich

I'm all ears.

[hfojvt]

88. some of us think that $500,000 IS rich

even if you live in California or New York. Just to make a wild guess or two, I think that less than 5% of Californians make $500,000 a year or more and that more than 30% of them make less than $60,000 a year.

[JuniperLea]

114. How the hell did you get a house at Big Bear...

For less than $1600 a month?

I live in 1600 sq ft five miles from the water's edge at Seal Beach in LA County, and I pay a mortgage of $1800 a month.

Middle class in CA is about $250k a year... if you count per capita income, it's in the middle.

[imdjh]

134. Oh joy, backhanded bragging about how expensive it is to be poor in California. Tiresome.

[JuniperLea]

165. Clearly you don't get it...

Carry on...


:eyes:

[Obamanaut]

34. What exactly is a 'fair share'? The top 1% earners pay nearly half

of the total income tax now, while 47 million returns paid none. And, many of those received in the mail an additional amount through programs such as earned income tax credit.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

So, what is a 'fair share'?

[MajorChode]

42. You're peddling Limbaugh's bullshit

The "share" of taxes that the top 1% pay is completely meaningless in terms of fairness. In terms of fairness, the only thing that matters is what percentage of each individual's income is paid in taxes. Everything else is complete and utter bullshit.

The link you provided is very duplicitous because it doesn't include FICA which IS federal income tax. It's the same bullshit numbers game Limbaugh likes to play. Limbaugh will only tell you about non-FICA federal income taxes because with very few exceptions it's the only tax in America that's progressive(and even that's not entirely true). If you look at total tax burden like FICA, state tax, fuel tax, utility tax, sales tax, vehicle tax, property tax, and dozens of other taxes that are regressive, it's pretty easy to find examples of people who make less than the average wage in America, yet pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than the richest Americans.

[Obamanaut]

80. Isn't it true that FICA is the means by which soc sec and medicaid

are funded? If this is true, then many who live long enough will recoup their deposits.

As for the "Limbaugh bullshit", I believe one can find the same info through the IRS. Maybe he looks there.

And isn't it also true that one can find an adjusted gross income that is lower than gross due to the FICA contribution - often to the point of lowering the total income tax burden such that all the monies withheld during the year will be returned, with possibly even a bonus via EITC?

Many people give the impression of hating rich people, but selectively. The McCains have money and they are on the 'dislike' list. The Kerry and Kennedy families have money, but they are on the 'like' side of the ledger.

[MajorChode]

101. The statistics are fine, it's the interpretation that's bullshit

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
-- Mark Twain

The bullshit comes in when you try to imply that the top 1% are paying more than their "fair share" simply because their income group pays proportionately more in non-FICA income tax.

If you think FICA is a "deposit", then you have a lot to learn about SS and Medicare. Those programs are funded by those who are currently working and pay into the system. There is no deposit and even no guarantee of benefits. You derive a benefit directly or indirectly with all the taxes you pay. FICA is no different in that regard. Trying to tie the taxes you pay with whatever benefit you receive is just another smoke and mirrors trick. Taxes are not a set fee based on the services you receive. They are the cost of living in a civilized society, and they are levied as a function of your income. It's the only way a society can work, unless you're talking about one where everyone makes the same income.

Many people may hate rich people. I certainly don't. I'm a dedicated capitalist and I'm all for people making as much honest money as they can. But there's a difference between someone who has money is and advocate for the poor and middle class and someone who has money and is an exclusive advocate for the rich. That's pretty much where I size up my like and dislike list.

[lysosome]

141. You haven't even scratched the surface of this diddo head bullshit.

Look, we are in the middle of two wars that benefit the rich and are being fought by the poor. I don't see any millionaire's kids getting killed. Why don't we just use the working classes' taxes to pay for health care - And tax the hell out of the rich to pay for THEIR war!

[MajorChode]

164. Because little of that makes much sense

The draft went away over 30 years ago. Nobody, rich or poor, is being compelled to fight anyone's wars.

Whether the expenditure is war, social security, health care, roads, or just about anything else, the bottom line is those expenditures are on behalf of the society as a whole. As such, the society as a whole is obligated to pay for them.

The notion that once someone has exceeded a certain arbitrary dollar amount in taxes, they have met their "fair share" is complete bullshit. The wealthy derive a much larger benefit from what society has to offer and the have a much higher ability to pay. As such they should be levied a higher amount commensurate with their income and the rate they pay should be progressive. Furthermore it's in everyone's interest to have a healthy and prosperous lower and middle classes.

[lysosome]

177. No one is compelled to fight? Awesome!

Come on home fellas, Major Chode says the war is over!

[MajorChode]

178. You did get the word the draft ended in 1975, right?

Or perhaps you think playing dumb is a good way to appear clever?

[lysosome]

179. ... did it?

Ever hear of the back door draft? People have been signing up for service for collage money for quite some time. Once in, they have been forced to serve in the GWOT for almost a decade now. Now days, the rich don't have to send there kids to the national guard to get them out of the military. They just pay their collage.

[MajorChode]

180. I served on active duty and the RR and the NG for over 10 years

The term "back door draft" is intended to deceive people who have never served. From the day I signed on the dotted line I knew what my obligation was, as does everyone else who signs on the dotted line. The whole 60's mentality "poor kids war" meme is about 40 years out of date and doesn't apply to an all volunteer military, period.

[lysosome]

182. And you served with how many millionaires?

[MajorChode]

184. Donno, myself for one

By the time I got out of the NG, I had topped $1 million in net worth. I'm sure there's plenty of kids of "millionaires" who serve in the military, but such is not the benchmark of wealth that it used to be.

But your question is largely irrelevant and just a bit mindless. It's kind of like asking how many millionaire plumbers do I know and trying to imply that because there aren't very many then poor people are being forced against their will to be plumbers.

[lysosome]

186. But you ...

Keep avoiding the point, and the point of the topic. When one considers the "fair share" one pays to maintain the country, the price is not always paid in cash money. Sometimes it's paid in blood.
Yes, there are more poor people fighting the rich man's war, always have been, always will be.
And yes, being a millionaire gives you a hell of a lot more choice as to whether you want to get up and be a plumber (or any other job) than being poor does. If you didn't get a scholarship and you want to go to a good school, an army recruiter is going to be very persuasive. The rich don't have to make that choice. That doesn't seem to come up too much in the "fair share" one pays.

[MajorChode]

187. As far as I can see, you don't have a point to avoid

You keep pretending this is a "rich man's war", but you haven't offered not one iota to support that assertion. The majority of Americans supported both wars at the time they began. It wasn't even close. So other than some kind of 1960's Vietnam argument when the draft was going full swing, what evidence do you have to support what you simply assume is correct? As yet you haven't offered one iota. Until you establish it is, everything else you've mentioned is simply strawman rhetoric.

[lysosome]

190. Didn't have to go far. There are several examples on this board!

Now that Duncan is the nation's top education official, anti-recruitment activists worry that he will use his position to promote the expansion of JROTC and military academies as solutions for cash-strapped or underperforming school districts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6448407
Now suppose you tell me how it would be that now that rich kids are not being drafted they represent a larger percent of the army than when there was a draft. Explain this carefully. How are there a larger percent than those who's incentives are financial. I understand how some of them just wanted to serve, but rich folks can afford collage on their own. For many of the poor, this is the way to go.

Then look up the term "straw man". It does not mean what you think it does.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. Pay 50% of tax, control 70% of the wealth.

:think:

[Taitertots]

109. Fair Share

Why don't they just make a fair wage? Then we can talk about fair share.

It is amazing how fair only matters in taxes.

[inna]

132. and don't forget about the Social Security Tax Cap -

- a plutocratic monstrosity that needs to go.

[JuniperLea]

166. The top 2% have 95% of the money...

We shouldn't mix apples and oranges... if you have 95% of the money, you should pay 95% of the tax! Why should the bulk of the tax burdon fall on those who only have 5% of the money?

[Obamanaut]

168. In the spirit of keeping apples and oranges separate, when speaking

of income and income tax rather than wealth, consider:

<snip> The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $66,532) earned 68.7 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.6 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $410,096) earned approximately 22.8 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid more in federal individual income taxes than the bottom 95 percent of tax returns. <from the link previously provided>

But there are still the 47 million returns mentioned with zero tax liability.

[JuniperLea]

169. I take issue with your figures... where are they from?

And how much were the earnings on the 47 million returns?

The devil is in the details.

Wealth begats wealth... the more you have, the more you "earn" and it is "earnings" that I am talking about.

[Obamanaut]

170. Take issue all you want, I didn't invent them. The link was provided

about 11 lines above this post, but here it is again just for you

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

What does it matter the amount of the earnings on the 47 million returns that not only had zero income tax liability, but many received an additional amount through such programs as earned income tax credit.

So I submit to you that based on income alone (exclude total wealth) because that is pretty much what is used on the annual IRS form - the top 1% of income EARNERS, paying over 40% of the INCOME TAX collected by the IRS is a pretty hefty sum. DOn't you think?

But then again, I don't hate rich people. It does seem at times that rich people are hated selectively - we hate McCain, but love Kerry (for example).

edited to add a c in McCain

[JuniperLea]

172. There was no link...

What percentage of the total earnings does that top 1% hold? This should not be a per capita thing, it should be a per dollar thing. Get it?

[Obamanaut]

174. Link in post 34, in post 170, and again here

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

Maybe you can find the information to your question in the link provided, three times. If not, google is your friend if you don't like the numbers you see in these oft repeated links.

I cannot keep up with the changing question - what with the apples and oranges intermingling. So here it is again for you:

The top 1% of income earners paid over 40% of income tax collected. Get it?

[JuniperLea]

175. Jesus God...

I'm asking you, because it's extremely apparent you don't get what I'm saying. I thought perhaps a little light would come on if you saw the number yourself, and you'd get it. A light in the dim...

I was referring to the post I responded to... it didn't include the link. I'm not going around reading all of your posts... :eyes:

I've worked for billionaires for 15 of the last 20 years. I know how they are taxed. I know how many of them there are.

You don't get it at all.

You need to compare dollars earned to taxes paid. The tax should be on the dollars in the income... hence income tax. You don't tax a person, you tax their income.

Jesus God...

[Obamanaut]

176. Great Goddess of the Moon...

<In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income.> From the link previously supplied

"...tax returns paid..."

Why provide a link if it isn't read.

Great Goddess of the Moon...

[MajorChode]

181. Can you explain how having 68.7% of the income and paying 86.6% of the taxes isn't "fair"?

You do understand how progressive tax principles work, yes? The US takes in $2.5 trillion in tax receipts each year. Divide that by 300 million people and you get $8,333 for every man woman and child in the US. The US median family income is about $50K. Do you think a family of 4 can afford a $33,332 federal tax bill?

The reason why the ditto-heads want to speak in terms of the share a group pays in income taxes is the richer the rich get and the poorer the poor get, the more deceiving their numbers become to anyone who isn't smart enough to see through them.

[JuniperLea]

183. Thank you!

It's really very, very sad, and pathetic actually, that you have to pre-chew all that information for someone. I guess that GOP Kool Aid is potent stuff, possibly poisonous to the touch!

Excellent post.

[JuniperLea]

112. Well, I make more alone than you and your fiance do combined...

And I have no class at all:)

:silly:

I know a lot of people with millions of dollars and no sense, so yeah, judging by income for any other reason but to tax someone, is really dumb.

[armyowalgreens]

14. 500K is not middle class.

[glinda]

86. You are right. It is not middle class.

[diane in sf]

116. it's upper middle class or lower upper class, but it's not even close to what the upper.1%

make/have/control. As one source said, "the people in $1-2 million dollar houses are not your enemies, the ones in the $40 million dollar houses are.

[Amos Moses]

20. you're crazy

:crazy:

[Donnachaidh]

22. uhh, no it's not middle class.

Not by a long shot.

[asdjrocky]

46. Ca or Ny?

You mean the Ca or Ny on the planet earth? Because I'm not sure what planet you live on.

[aquart]

127. Pasture pastry.

[LiberalAndProud]

5. No taxes til 100,000?

I'd have to do some charitable giving to the government at that. It just wouldn't sit right with me. I guess I'm nuts.

[Taitertots]

103. You could actually afford to

[Jester Messiah]

36. 100,000/year is rich to you?

In Northern Virginia, where I live, 100K/year will have you living in a -humble- apartment, or eating ramen every day in order to make mortgage payments. Think before you post. Numbers apply differently to various areas.

I think the better solution would be a tax on consumption. Basically just scrap the income tax and implement a VAT. People who buy luxury yachts and personal jets will wind up paying their fair share. Just make sure to put a similar tax on such assets bought overseas and imported in.

[Taitertots]

106. No, thats why they pay no taxes under my plan

Everyone living in North Virginia would get a dramatic boast to their incomes under my plan. You could earn 100,000 and get way more.

The VAT doesn't stop the unhealthy accumulation of wealth which is the problem. Recent history should make it clear that a society can't function when the super rich wield undue influence.

[michreject]

40. So with your tax plan

A person who makes 500,000 nets 250,000
A person who makes 900,000 nets 450,000
And a person who makes a million nets 100,000

Why work?

[Zodiak]

48. A person who makes 500,000 makes more than that

the first 100,000 is not taxed

The next 150,000 is taxed at 25% = 112,500 earned

And the last 250,000 is taxed 50% = 125,000 earned

So 500,000 grosses 337,500.

Now do you get it? Each bit earned is taxed into its own bracket, but when you bust into a new bracket, any NEW EARNINGS are taxed at that rate. This is how we used to do taxes in the 50's.

[JuniperLea]

167. Why not?

I gross $80K and take home $40k as it is... they pay that much in Europe, AND get free healthcare to boot!

We need to stop the thievery/hemorrhaging of our taxes once they get to the government, then figure out how much we really need based on the reality, instead of what's left after so much is wasted/stolen.

[taught_me_patience]

81. Sounds like you don't want to pay taxes

Everybody should pay no matter what. Poor people pay less and rich more... but everybody needs to pay.

[Taitertots]

104. I want to be in the 90% bracket

I'd gladly pay 90% income tax on every dollar I make over a million.

[imdjh]

133. When you get to that bracket, then make the suggestion.

Right now, you should probably come up with how much you think YOUR contribution ought to be.

[Taitertots]

149. I don't have money to spare

If you think you do, you are more than welcome to give more of it to the government.

Do we want a system that works, or one that satisfies your ideology?

[imdjh]

131. You have lost your mind. You know why rentals don't include utilities anymore?

Because people who don't pay the bills don't give a shit what the bill is. Don't believe me? Get a roommate, include the utilities, and see if he doesn't run the washer on "hot", the dryer on "low" and turn the AC down to 72ºF on a 95ºF day.

[Taitertots]

146. So you think the poor people will eat my left over burrito if they don't have to pay taxes?

[imdjh]

151. Only in a colorado forest

[Taitertots]

153. What??!!

Poor people are not going to eat your left over burrito.

Why should people who don't make enough to get by have to pay taxes? So it conforms to your ideology, despite everyone benefiting if they don't.

[PSzymeczek]

135. This works for me! n/t

[Luminous Animal]

6. Well that is just nutty talk!

Because, as you know, we all have the opportunity to be fabulously wealthy. And if you join that elite 5% of the population that owns 80% of the wealth, then how would you feel that if the society that made such fabulous wealth even possible deign to tax you to maintain the infrastructure.

[Lorax7844]

7. Fuck um I'm sick of funds getting cut for the poor while those assholes are fighting over lear jets

and $20,000 garbage cans.

You want to pay down the deficit and pay for health care, tax the rich, the end. Anyone that says differently is fucking us!

[Luminous Animal]

11. What baffles me is that while people understand...

that capitalism is a competition they don't understand that competition also means that there will be losers. Vegas understands this.

[Hannah Bell]

13. only if they're lazy, you know!

in which case, they deserve to suffer. that'll teach 'em.

[JDPriestly]

8. That should have been the first item on Obama's agenda.

He is doing things backwards. He will be out of office before he achieves anything on the economy. I don't see any increase in jobs.

[Lorax7844]

10. Agreed 100%

[slay]

24. +1

I'm over a year out of college and NO luck finding a job relating to my degree. I've given up, taken some computer repair classes and am just going to do that. I guess I'm just waiting until people wake up enough to elect a REAL liberal president who will give us REAL change. Argh...

[michreject]

49. What was your field of study? nt

[slay]

65. Major in Sociology, concentration in Criminology, minor in Psychology

guess i just have too many ology's... heheh.. i actually had a job lined up but when the economy tanked a hiring freeze was put on and i've had no luck since then. i'm more on the social work side of sociology and those jobs are quick to dry up in these situations.. can't be helping the poor or needy during times when the rich aren't getting QUITE as rich ya know! doh.. :shrug:

[michreject]

68. Seems like you could join the police dept.

They're always hiring.

[slay]

73. Yeah I thought about possibly parole officer

but i'm so anti-authority i don't know if i would feel right doing that.. i know i couldn't be a straight up cop cop - too many rules and too many are just assholes... i'm done with my computer classes though and hoping to find some tech support type job... computers have always been a hobby so was a logical place to turn when other things weren't working out.. oh well - could always be worse i suppose.. but we learned of so many cool things in sociology like Fred Block's idea of basic income grants which would provided substance level food and housing to ANYONE who wanted it - would just be like a dorm room and basic food but still.. obviously we are a LONGGGG way from that since we can't even provide basic health care in this country.. sometimes i wanna cry, sometimes i wanna scream, but i kind of just have to laugh - otherwise it's just all too much.. so much potential to move the world forward and such little action in that direction.. doh...

[begin_within]

9. Their intent has been all along to remove any obligation to society (in the form of taxation), while

still reaping the benefit (profit) of participating in that same society via the economic apparatus that enriches them at the expense of everyone else. That is essentially their goal and reducing tax rates is their central purpose.

[inna]

138. bingo. you just defined the central purpose of the Republican party. nt

[winyanstaz]

18. K & R!

[1]

19. here is what we should do. tax the shit out of them... here is what we won't do...

tax the shit out of them...

[skier_]

69. Sadly

this is just too true.

[knixphan]

21. K&R!

Yes and yes.

[slay]

23. I've been wondering the same thing!

The huge gap between the rich and the poor hasn't been this big since the 1930's - and may end up being even bigger than that. We ALLOW the rich to get rich by exploiting the land, the environment, workers, etc. They OWE us. They should be taxed at an EXTREMELY high rate. Unless we all want to end up basically slaves working for $7 an hour, we MUST close the gap between the rich and poor. Taxing the rich to help provide healthcare for the poor who they exploit, ignore, even hate - would be a good start.

[conscious evolution]

25. If we tax the rich

they won't be able to trickle down on us.

[NecklyTyler]

26. It is not good enough to get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich

I would like to see targeted application of the Tax Code to recoup the loss of revenue allowed by Bush administration as well as additional taxes on the richest Americans to fund Health Care

[Lasher]

120. We need to rescind Saint Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich.

All of Junior's too.

[Sebastian Doyle]

152. We need to go back further than that......

We need to roll back JFK's tax cuts too. I think he would approve, if he knew the money was going to pay for his little brother's Medicare for All bill.

Eisenhower era tax rates. No loopholes. Combine this with ending all foreign occupations and dismantling the "defense" industry, and we'll have enough money to pay for health care for the entire fucking galaxy.

[Lasher]

156. I can salute that.

Closing all foreign military bases is an idea I've been fond of for a long time. And we need to start doing something serious about paying down the national debt. But there's a big problem with that. If Republicans get back in control they will just max out the credit cards again. I don't feel good about Democrats doing the heavy lifting (and being villanized for raising taxes) just so the GOP can go on another spending spree.

[NecklyTyler]

27. K&R

[Obamanaut]

28. The "rich" do pay some income tax. The top 1% of earners paid,

in 2007, around 40% of the income tax revenue. At the same time there were around 47 million IRS returns filed that had no (zero) income tax liability at all.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

edited to add the word 'million'

[salguine]

29. I was past "tax them" a long time ago. Tell me why we shouldn't fucking behead them.

[Fla_Democrat]

31. You need someone to explain

why it shouldn't be policy to murder someone for their money? :eyes:

[NoSheep]

54. Cheney and the Bushes have been doing it for years.

[Fla_Democrat]

84. I don't look to them for guidance

on policy issues, but that aside.

I wonder, what level of capital is a capital crime? Should the suspects in the Byrd and Melanie Billings shootings be released, since they were only killing to get money? :shrug:

[NoSheep]

125. Are you pretending not to understand my point? You seem incredulous

at the obvious hyperbole mentioned here as to certain fantasies about what to do with the "untouchable" uber-rich who benefit from the use, abuse and often murder of those less fortunate than themselves. This makes me angry. It makes many people angry. Some of us imagine eternal hell for these "untouchables". And we are sick to fucking death of people who don't seem to see this CLEAR, perpetual and ever more socially sanctioned use, abuse and often murder of those lesser than themselves for their own economic gain.
Now. Is there anything more we need to discuss or have I been clear about the points I've made about these murderers?

Murderers, some with their hands on the trigger, some who just let it trickle down, for more vacation homes and fancier cars?

:shrug:

[salguine]

94. Who said anything about taking their money? I have my own money, I don't want theirs. Besides,

I wasn't talking about doing it FOR their money.

You need someone to explain that I wasn't actually being literal in the first place?

[MercutioATC]

33. How much does somebody have to make for you to want to kill them?

Growing up, one of my best friend's family owned the largest steel fabrication plant between New York and Chicago. They made parts for the first space shuttle, missile tubes for Trident submarines, and a lot of other pricey milspec stuff. They made good money...and they gave generously, both to their employees and the community.

The Gates Foundation is a better-known example of philanthropy.


Will these be public executions or will we be killing them in their sleep?

[NoSheep]

56. Ask the republicans. They should know.

[MercutioATC]

77. Ah, inflammatory AND reticent...

Great combination you have going there :eyes:

[NoSheep]

78. Thank you. Thanks very much.

At least it is reasoned and logical. And also true, I might add.

[Obamanaut]

35. If they are beheaded, how will they pay their 'fair share' nt

[Xenotime]

91. THey can contribute 100% then

[Obamanaut]

96. Most people who have been beheaded have their incomes drastically

reduced, thus reducing the likelihood of being able to pay any income tax at all. That might make them eligible to benefit from this redistribution of income that so many seem to love.

If the entire upper 1% if earners is beheaded, thus eliminating the influx to the coffers of their 40% portion of the income tax they currently pay, and 47 million have no tax burden at all - won't this put the poor middle class further in debt?

[Xenotime]

90. I like your thinking.

[Hippo_Tron]

105. They tried that in the French Revolution and they got Napoleon...

And ultimately they just ended up replacing the hereditary aristocracy with the wealthy aristocracy.

[Retired AF Dem]

115. And take all their money?

How long would that run the country, a day or two?

[salguine]

30. It's corporations, too...75% of US corporations pay NO income tax. None. Zero.

[1]

32. no. that's an ignorant argument. most "corporations" pay no tax because they make no money...

you have to do some reading on "corporations" and what it means to be a "corporation."

the vast majority of corporations are small (like one-person affairs), and they don't make enough money in any year to pay taxes.

but be all BIG AND BOLD that corporations don't pay income taxes. hell yeah!

except 1% of all corporations pay like 90% of all corporate taxes. huge amounts of money. huge.

educate yourself, or don't.

ignorance will get you a bigger DU posting cred...

[Spike from MN]

37. Not according to this article.

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes
Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:54pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

...

Dorgan in a statement called the report "a shocking indictment of the current tax system." Levin said it made clear that "too many corporations are using tax trickery to send their profits overseas and avoid paying their fair share in the United States."

The study showed about 28 percent of large foreign corporations, those with more than $250 million in assets, doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $372 billion in gross receipts, the senators said. About 25 percent of the largest U.S. companies paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $1.1 trillion in gross sales that year, they said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812?sp=true

Also, you stated that "the vast majority of corporations are small (like one-person affairs)." Uh, a "one-person affair" would be considered a small business, not a huge corporation.

If you want to look at corporate freeloaders, CSX corporation is a prime example. From a 2002 article at the Citizens for Tax justice website:

John W. Snow, President Bush’s choice to replace the fired Paul O’Neill as Secretary of the Treasury, is the CEO of a champion corporate tax dodger, CSX Corporation.

CSX’s 2001 annual report states the following company motto: “CSX will pursue all available opportunities to pay the lowest federal, state and foreign taxes.”

As a result of those efforts, CSX reports that:

* In three of the past four years, CSX paid no federal income tax at all.
* In fact, instead of paying taxes, CSX supplemented its $934 million in pretax U.S. profits over the four years with a total of $164 million in tax rebate checks from the federal government.

http://www.ctj.org/html/jwsnow.htm

Yes, that's right. On $934,000,000 pretax profits, not only did they not pay a dime in taxes but as a bonus, they received $164,000,000 in tax rebates. I don't know about you but I know I'd have more money in my pocket if my tax rate was -17.5%.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RadiationTherapy]

60. Great post! I hope more people come and read it! ******

So they can see what an unhappy, crass person you are.

[1]

67. i am so happy! and so happy to post to you! i cannot tell you how happy i am!

i hope everyone gets to read this.

i am so happy!

so happy!

yes!

[RadiationTherapy]

79. I feel that way all the time.

I have a good attitude and am interested in communication; not so much the one-up games.

[FormerDittoHead]

64. I have no idea how you've posted so much before with my not seeing it!

You are one rude dude.

Welcome to my block list! You're NOT the only "1" in it...

[inna]

142. darn, now i'm curious what he said in that deleted post, heh.

i could tell his bad attitude from his condescending remark (and a projection, too! :P ) in another post, "ignorance will get you a bigger DU posting cred..."

[FormerDittoHead]

157. I don't like to block and tell.

I'm willing to chalk it up to too much caffeine, but I just didn't get how personal insults would result after a single post in a debate about corporate taxation, and I didn't see it letting up. Sometimes I go back and review my blocking decisions but most of the time they are confirmed by the briefest of reviews.

On the point of the original post, one issue NOT discussed was how/if statistics delimited between C-corps, sub-chapter S, publicly traded corporations and even non-profit corporations, the 2nd and last of which would NEVER pay taxes, and what the tax statistics are on publicly traded corporations.

David Cay Johnson has written a FEW fine books on tax avoidance. My PERSONAL favorite technique was to own a shell corporation overseas which maintained ownership of the corporation's trademarks. Then, the domestic branch would use that trademark (say, Mickey Mouse on diapers, and trust me, infants in diapers don't care if Mickey's on their diaper) but then kick back a 'licensing fee' to the foreign subsidiary. The licensing fee would zero-out the domestic profit, effectively shifting the income to Belize or Dubai or where ever the taxes are zero.

[Spike from MN]

160. Heh, I was just getting ready to reply when the post was removed.

Bummer. I was looking forward to pointing out his errors. Sometimes it pays to be a grammar nazi. ;)

As for the content, I'm not sure if it's against the rules to post it but feel free to PM me if you're really curious.

[inna]

140. omg. that second link is just.... MIND BLOWING. wow.

it's simply obscene. :grr:

thanks for the info.

[Spike from MN]

158. It's outrageous, isn't it?

A friend sent me that link right after Dubya nominated John Snow for Treasury Secretary. Of course, repeatedly emailing the info to all 50 Senators and requesting that they fight his nomination resulted in the predictable outcome. He was unaminously confirmed. I'm sure afterwards, they slapped him on the back and congratulated him on royally ripping off the taxpayers. That seems to be how it works in D.C.

Here's another nugget from the wiki page on Snow:

Part of CSX, CSX Lines was sold to The Carlyle Group, early in 2003. After Snow left the company for the White House, CSX sold its international port operations to the UAE company, Dubai Transport.

Carlyle Group...Dubai Transport. Why am I not surprised?

Edited to add:

I found another link on corporate tax rates in the Bush years. I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing but what I've read so far looks pretty interesting. On page 16, Boeing tops the chart with a tax rate of -159% in 2003. Guess who is picking up the slack for the corporations that don't pay taxes? Uh, that would be people like you and me. You know, the poor and middle class. :grr:

http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04an.pdf

[Spike from MN]

159. Delete. Dupe

[NoSheep]

52. Excuse me...but corporations don't pay taxes because they are allowed to invest their profits to

make more profits and this can include HUGE salaries. Educate yourself. I think your reply was a little incomplete.

[1]

71. spoken like a poster that never actually had anything to do with a business...

come on, you work the "minimum wage", don't you.

you wear the paper hat.

flip burgers for a living, don't you.

its ok. no disrespect. we all did at one point...

[1]

75. i bet you are confused by the concept of a "write off" too, aren't you... of course you are...

wait!

i can tell your joke.

Kramer: It's just a write off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write off?
Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off what?
Kramer: Jerry all these big companies they write off everything
Jerry: You don't even know what a write off is.
Kramer: Do you?
Jerry: No. I don't.
Kramer: But they do, and they are the ones writing it off.

[NoSheep]

76. Your comments are ridiculous and don't deserve any more of a response than that

Except the suggestion that you see someone about your psychosis

[NoSheep]

57. Embarrassed much?

[1]

72. omg, you too... never held more than a minimum wage job, eh?

[druidity33]

102. jeez, what are you... a 3 year old? nt

:eyes:

[inna]

143. i suspect he's posting on a wrong board.

:shrug:

[stray cat]

38. Maybe 35% across the board unless you are below the poverty line

No exemptions. After all rich is relative. If something is important enough than all of us should contribute in a meaningful way. Its easy to call for someone else to pay...

[Autumn]

39. When Hell freezes over,

it's not going to happen.

[fascisthunter]

45. sure it will, if we make it happen

[Autumn]

61. In order to make it happen,

they need to listen to us. Haven't seen that happen so far. They listen to their "constituents", you know the ones that really matter to them,the ones with deep pockets that are loaded with change that our politicians have given to them . Quid pro Quo .IMO

[AngryAmish]

41. celebate ones don't get taxed under your plan?

[fascisthunter]

44. Exactly... they have consistantly been getting tax cuts ever since the 50's

[ThomWV]

47. They will tax the Rich the day inflation makes you and I rich.

[NoSheep]

51. I'm sick of subsidizing their vacation homes by having to pay higher prices for the shit they sell.

[FormerDittoHead]

53. K+R. Didn't catch this thread early enough to chime in. Total agreement+++

I don't bother to write at length so far down-thread where it probably won't be read at all, let alone replied to.

[Kansas Wyatt]

55. The Rich need a retro tax to pay for shoving their responsibility...

On everyone else for the last 30 years.

It's time for the rich to hurt for a change.

[1]

59. "we" are never going to tax the rich people. because "we" don't get to decide that. don't you see?

"we" don't get to tax.

"they" get to tax.

do you get it now?

[Romulox]

62. Most of our tax dollars seem to go into one subsidy or another for the rich in the first place

[bikebloke]

63. I've seen their tax returns.

I used to work in a bank auditing loans. And I saw a lot of tax returns of people making $300,000 - $500,000 a year. My wage was not much more than minimum wage without benefits, yet I was paying more in taxes than they were. And not by percentage, but dollars.

[NoSheep]

66. They pay accountants to help them find ways to write off sailboats, etc.

All a rich person needs is a small "consulting business" and every vacation they take can be called a business trip. Even furnishings for their home are written off in this case. It may not be technically legal, but they do it anyway. They're rich enough to pay the fines if they get caught.

[Blue_Tires]

70. it only....

[truebrit71]

74. Sounds good to me too...I want those tax-gifts to the "haves" from Bush rolled back ASAP...

...Fuck this Bush's 3rd term shit we have been seeing..

[Leftist Agitator]

82. Tax them?

Fuck that. We should nationalize 99% of the assets of anyone with more than 50 million dollars. They can live comfortably off of 500k, I'm certain. Anyone who is worth 10 mil - 50 mil can surrender 75% of their assets. 5 mil - 10 mil, 50%.

If they want to complain, put them in internment camps.

Problem solved.

[Thothmes]

107. So much for any semblence of Constitutional Law in this country

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glinda]

85. They will tax the rich when they election financial reform. sad but most likely true.

[leftofthedial]

87. commie.

[Xenotime]

89. Keep up the rant. Somebody will hear it and take up the charge..

It seems those in Congress have lost the fight.

[Prophet 451]

92. When you reform campaign finance

Lets be honest, the campaign contributions system is legalised bribery. The people have been brainwashed for about forty years to believe in trickle-down voodoo so they're not a problem and the rich and their corporations fund the candidates.

EDIT: A lot could also be solved simply by reforming the tax code so that humans can understand it and closing teh frigging loopholes.

[ParkieDem]

95. You're absolutely right.

Regardless of whether you're conservative, liberal, or whatever, we all should be able to agree that the tax code is way too fucking complicated. The fact that our own Treasury secretary can't do his taxes right doesn't mean that he's an idiot, it means the law is just too complex.

I'd love to see liberals and conservatives compromise somewhere on these lines when it comes to taxes:

First, ALL income, REGARDLESS of source, whether it's wages, capital gains, etc. are taxed at the same rate.

Income below $25,000 per year: You pay NO income taxes.

Income $25,000-$50,000: taxed at 10%

Income $50,000-$100,000: taxed at 15%

Income $100,000-$250,000: taxed at 25%

Income $250,000-$500,000: taxed at 35%

Income over $500,000: taxed at 40%

ALL health insurance costs, whether insurance or whatever, are deductible. Modest deductions allowed for mortgage interest, REAL charitable giving, are still available.

On the business side, here's where we compromise: conservatives always bitch about how we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (35%), and they're actually right -- the problem is, few corporations pay that amount. So, here's the deal: we reduce the corporate rate to the OECD average (which I believe would put it in the 20-25% range), but eliminate all but the simplest and most common deductions.

This could actually result in considerably more revenue, and would save individuals and companies a lot of money in tax planning. It might put some tax accountants and tax lawyers out of business, but who cares?

[Prophet 451]

98. Works for me

I propose a top rate of 50% on incomes over a million a year. The numbers might need to be tinkered with slightly but the basic gist seems right to me. Before I was laid off here (England), I was paying 22% (not couning NI, our version of Social Security).

[MichiganVote]

97. Yup. And since a good number of Congressmen/women are rich...you get the idea.

[wiggs]

93. Check out the stunning stats in this recent DU post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6443569

[Lorax7844]

99. kick

[Vidar]

100. I entirely agree.

[leftyland]

108. Damn good question! Nt

[FiveGoodMen]

110. Amen!

[undergroundpanther]

111. If they refuse to pay up..

Then can we put their heads on pikes?

Taxes are what people pay for a functioning civilized society.The rich have too much because the poor and too many go without for this to be anything but financial abuse on a national scale. The rich MUST be forced to SHARE what they hoard and wring from others that give them too much(working class,poor,anyone NOT rich). Because we all know
we could go back to pillaging and taking it from the rich to survive when they make this country desperate and it's 'leaders' as corrupt as any tin pot tyranny..

[ms liberty]

117. I'm ms liberty, and I approve this message. K&R n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

118. we need to make it clear that Reaganomics failed and the tax rates should be returned to the pre

Reagan rates

[vssmith]

119. Just put the taxes back to where they were when Reagan was president.

[Sirveri]

147. Correction, BEFORE Reagan was president.

He's the primary reason the wealth divide got as bad as it is now.

[Thothmes]

155. Better yet, move them back to before Kennedy changed them

[vssmith]

162. I say this because the Republicans worship Reagan and the taxes were higher then

[lib_wit_it]

121. Rant on, fellow DUer. The Bush and the Rs moved the money to where they wanted it. It's our fucking

turn to move it back where the country needs it.

[Fire1]

122. Medicare will NOT be cut!! If anything it will be expanded

to include EVERYONE!!!

[leftofthedial]

123. After the revolution

apparently

[lonestarnot]

126. Oh so you favor healthcare over wealthcare?

[Vroomfondel]

128. Loves me some rant.

Especially when It's got a great point.

[imdjh]

129. Have you actually listened to yourself saying that? nt

[imdjh]

130. Taxing them on all teir income would be more than sufficient and fair to boot.

[byronius]

136. Tax the two-time Bush voters -- rich or poor. Retroactively.

You know, the fuckers who raped and looted the nation?

Bring back indentured servitude. They need to go to Iraq and help out.

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

139. It is a class war, and the rich are winning!!! EOM

[Lorax7844]

144. 4 real

[condoleeza]

145. I got approached by a woman today who, if she wasn't on crack, she's got some really bad DNA,

and she had a badge that showed she was licensed to collect signatures for ballot measures in my state. She was collecting signatures for a measure that would stop a corporate income tax measure that has been proposed by our largely democrat legislature. I am NEVER downtown, but I was there because my job put me there, and I was on lunch break, so I'm at the Farmers Market, which is great, but I am approached not just once, but 3 times in a half hour by people who appear to be homeless. When I told them that if my legislature recommended the tax, I support it, they all just walked away like they were on speed dial, or speed. I don't know if this is what it's like everywhere but I can only imagine that most people who are approached to sign a petition for a ballot measure to fight a tax would probably sign it.

Corporate tax is a complete joke in this country, I am sick and tired of picking up the slack for people who are in a completely different tax bracket than I am, people really need to think before they fight taxes. Every once in awhile your elected officials get it right.

[defendandprotect]

148. We need to return to progressive taxation and move the burden of taxation off...

the shoulders of the poor and middle class -- and that includes raising the

Social Security FICA ceiling!!!

[Anti-Republician]

150. I AGREE!

That's right! Pres. Obama need to stop compromising with these Republicians, take charge of his own agenda, and lets get stuff done quicker than what we are doing!! Did the republicians compromise for us? Hell no! The republicians had one agenda...and that was to make the richer, richer...and the poorer, poorer. And they did a damn good job at that! We shouldn't be compromising after what we endured for the last past 8 years. The republicians showed us what they are capable of doing...and that's messing up Poor and middle class America. So Pres. Obama, what we are saying is, ''LET'S GET THIS STUFF DONE WITHOUT THE HELP OR SUPPORT OF THESE REPUBLICIANS, WE DON'T NEED THEIR SUPPORT''!!

[Mark in Boston]

154. Tear the cap off OASDI tax, please!!!!!!

I am VERY much in favor of having individuals pay the OASDI income tax of 6.5% on personal income (not matched by business), WITH NO limit. OASDI is Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Tax.

OASDI is presently capped at $106,800 of earnings. Let's tear the roof off that sucker!

It's about time the rich paid back a bit of what they owe for living in the United States.

[ParkieDem]

163. I think the OASDI ceiling should be raised,

but not eliminated entirely.

There is a good reason why OASDI is capped, while Medicare taxes are not: there is a limit to Social Security benefits, but no theoretical limit to Medicare benefits.

Your SS benefits are based on your lifetime earnings. If you've earned $70k per year your whole life, your monthly SS benefit will be greater than the person earning $50k per year. The maximum salary upon which your benefit can be based is currently $106,800. So, the person making $106,800 per year will get the exact same benefit as the person making $2 million per year. This makes Social Security an insurance program, not a welfare program.

Now, take the average, middle-of-the road voter on the street and ask him what he thinks of social security. He'll say he loves it. Then, ask him what he thinks of "welfare." He'll probably say he doesn't like it.

By completely eliminating the earnings cap, you effectively turn Social Security into a welfare program, which will make it much less politically popular. In the current environment, I don't want that to happen.

[deaniac21]

171. We should all pay 100 % and then each takes according to

their need.

[LAGC]

189. There'd be a lot left over then.

After all, what do you really *need*? A simple house, food on the table, clothing, a vehicle and gas money to get around perhaps? But I agree that much of that excess wealth could be allocated more democratically, instead of just going to waste in the hands of the few as it works today...

[RT Atlanta]

173. Hell yes!

Bumping up since the time to recommend is past 24hrs.

Tax the rich, feed the poor, end the war....

[blindpig]

185. Cut to the chase

Let's take the means of production away from them.

[earth mom]

188. Word. nt