It's time to tax the ultra-rich until we have eliminated the deficit and debt, after all

[grahamhgreen]

they are the ones who led us into this mess.

That is all.

[BeFree]

1. It is the only solution

And that's where the money is.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Dreamer Tatum]

10. Who knew that junior high kids were such political activists?

Wow.

I, for one, volunteer to put burning bags of dog shit on their front stoops.

:eyes:

lunatic

[Gabi Hayes]

19. please, can you characterize the nature of that post?

thx

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. I love the response - wish I knew what it was in reference to. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

72. The post was about making life miserable for the rich until they pay trillions for us to stop

:crazy:

[dkofos]

2. And the corporations!!

[jwirr]

13. Especially multinational corporations. They now have representation

in our elections so they should be willing to pay the cost.

[liberalmike27]

57. It makes me tear up a little

To see that the rest of the Democrats at DU have finally come to the realization I had eight years ago--or, I've just been say-in'!!!

1.) Rich are the only ones that can afford it. Heard a deficit commission with Bradley, Hart, and another on Lawrence's show the other day. Bradley (b-ball player D) said wanted to add a dollar a gallon tax, after raising MPG rates over ten years, because (get this) taxing the rich, we've found hurts the economy (WTF???). I don't think so. It may be environmentally good, but it's just another regressive tax, taking spending straight from the economy that is lagging in demand. Eat the rich.

2.) It's more obvious that the rich have more than ever, and too much power. Taking huge sums from the rich and corporations is exactly what we need, to lessen their political power. Never in history have they had so much power, and have they used it so directly to squash the lower classes, to beat us into hell.

3.) Infrastructure rotting--I'll just leave this one with "I wonder when the next huge interstate bridge will plummet into the river below because we've been giving the rich tax cuts. Increase both the tax rate, add some new brackets to the top end, and tax ALL income, not excluding cap-gains to give the market a more "Long-term" flavor.

4.) Use their money to create jobs, jobs, jobs. Hell, their money will just end up filtering back to them anyway.

Let's stop shedding our tears for the most societally advantaged because they bear the brunt of the weight of all that gold.

[billlll]

3. Ike's 91% top rate...we had prosperity+jobs then

Bill Maher has repeatedly mentioned that

"Ike taxed the top at 91%...nothing odd about the idea. The economy sure worked better then than it does now ".

--Bill Maher (paraphrased from memory)

[bl968]

54. Ike's 91% top rate...we had prosperity+jobs then

Well the conservatives think everything was better in the 1950-1960's so....

[salinen]

4. Eat the rich!

They're so fat from an overflowing trough that they are a good source of food.

[Codeine]

6. Yep. That's where the money is. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. Works for me.

:bounce:

Of course it won't happen, EVER!

x(

[grahamhgreen]

16. If it happened before...

it can happen again!

:hi:

[Donnachaidh]

8. well they DID offer half their incomes for charity

of course, THAT was done for yet another tax write off. Philanthropy pays well.

TAX them till they BLEED.

[thelordofhell]

9. 50% top tax rate

With no deductions until we have NO DEBT!!

[BrentWil]

11. Capital will go out of the country. It is a globalized world

Trying to do that would simply mean those assets would be in a country with a lower tax rate.

It may sound good, but we are in a new world.

[jwirr]

14. I think you are correct but they are already moving capital out so

how do we stop them?

[BrentWil]

15. You don't

THe world is what it is. You figure out the policies that will benefit the most in the current world environment.

[Hannah Bell]

44. The policy would be to confisticate their US property. which is extensive.

including resource rights.

and to wish them a happy trip to the unregulated paradise of somalia.

[BrentWil]

45. THere are a few better places...

And that policy would mean mass starvation.

[grahamhgreen]

63. We already have mass starvation

Daily. Not to mention the food crisis of a few years back when these scum cornered rice snd other commodities causing even further global suffering.

We simply don't need greedy selfish people controlling vast amounts of ill-gotten capital.

Taxing them is the best way to fix our problem with these people.

Besides, they can afford it.

[BrentWil]

70. Mao style starvation. NT

[grahamhgreen]

17. They have already moved out of the country! I do not want them in this country.

They are not contributing to this country. They are destroying this country.

Without them, clothing will be made, energy will be produced, stores will be stocked, farms will grow food, they just won't to leech off of the rest of us.

Also, the good guys will stay. Fiorina and Murdoch can go rule over Somalia.

[Donnachaidh]

18. we're expected to be the ones who buy all their shit

So they should be paying their fair share to keep our country running.

I'm sick to death of the *we'll take our toys and leave* arguments - because these companies NEED us to keep THEM propped up. So tax the shit out of them. IF they leave, then hit them with 30 tariffs to import their products back into this country to sell. We'll see how much whining they do when they have to pay US to use our markets here.

[BrentWil]

34. You live in a dream world.

There would be mass starvation if any major shakeups happened. THe earth cannot support the population unless it has a modern liberal economy.

[grahamhgreen]

40. The earth will not survive with these bloodsuckers destroying the real economy

that underlies the house of cards they prop up through corruption.

They contribute nothing.

The world will function better when their time on earth has passed, just like it functions better without feudal lords and robber barrons.

[billlll]

43. capital flight ... happened before,,, people still here n/t

Nt

[txlibdem]

64. The rich have already taken their ill gotten gains and are living in other countryies

The head of Blackwater - now lives in Dubai
http://www.playahata.com/?p=9116

The offshoring of Exxon and other big companies so they don't pay a penny in US income tax - but still receive over $100 million in subsidies

American corporations are sitting on $1,800 Billion, enough to hire 20 million Americans and pay them $50,000 a year.

Donald Trump owns properties all over the world so he can quietly slip out in the dark of night at anytime

Steve Wynn, the entrepreneur who led the rebirth and explosive expansion of the Las Vegas Strip in the early 1990's, he's moving half his operation to Macau. "There's more stability and predictability in China than in Washington these days.""
http://theview.abc.go.com/forum/rich-people-are-leaving-america

Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild boasted, "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."

"DailyKOS.com reported that the Bush family bought thousands of acres in Paraguay."
http://conservativedailynews.com/2010/03/are-wealthy-americans-leaving-the-country/ -- see, it's not just the lefties sayin' it

Christian Kälin, a partner at residence and citizenship planning consultancy Henley Partners, said his firm has had a big rise in such inquiries.
He said: "Tax reasons might be the biggest reason why US citizens will want to drop their passports.." – clubconspiracy.com

Jay Krause, a partner at private-client specialist law firm Withers, said: "The number of inquiries from US citizens wanting to expatriate from their citizenship has increased rapidly in the last year." – wealth-bulletin.com

To become a resident of Costa Rico for instance only requires proving an income of $50,000 USD per year. Put $1,000,0000 in the bank and cut a crappy 5% annual and you're in. That is nothing serious for a middle-upper earner in their mid-50′s.

http://conservativedailynews.com/2010/03/are-wealthy-americans-leaving-the-country/

Wealthy people have been quitting their American citizenship for tax reasons for years. Tennessee-born mutual fund investor John Templeton did it in 1968. He died in 2008 in the Bahamas at the age of 95. John Dorrance III, grandson of the founder of Campbell Soup (CPB), quit being an American, as did members of the Getty Family. Companies including Tyco (TYC) and Transocean (RIG) have done the same thing. Some worry whether the newest crackdown will encourage more taxpayers to quit the U.S.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/more-rich-americans-renounce-u-s-citizenship-for-lower-taxes/19560160/

"America: Love it or (if you're rich enough) leave it?"
Glen Esnard, a Newport Beach executive for real estate services firm Grubb & Ellis, went to bat in the Wall Street Journal last week for high-income-earners who believe it's unfair that their tax rates should rise on Jan. 1, as President Obama proposes.

Esnard also suggested that the answer might be for the better-heeled to find a new country.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/09/obama-bush-tax-cuts-high-income-earners-wealthy.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef01348780ca7c970c

[OlympicBrian]

25. See my post below

The money which is out of the country could be re-patriated. And there are ways to catch people who would try to sneak out of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9378210&mesg_id=9379716

[me b zola]

28. Psst...those "assets" aren't doing us a tinkers damn bit of good here

so they can go to hell for all I care. Yeah, it is a brave new world.

[Wednesdays]

38. Oh? And which industrialized country, with a LOWER tax rate, will they move to, pray tell?

China? :rofl: Yeah, American billionaires are gonna take off in DROVES to COMMUNIST China!

Or, perhaps, they'll slog it out somewhere like uh, Sri Lanka...

[BrentWil]

41. There are many countries with a lower rate.

Ireland, Iceland, for example. Plus alot of these assets are in some sort of corporation. US corporate tax is actually pretty high, compared to the rest of the world.

[BarryMeNot]

49. So, big corporations are gonna set up shop in Iceland

There are SO many available workers there, after all. :rofl:

[dotymed]

50. Yes, corporate tax rates are higher in America,

but there are so many loopholes and "incentives", that most corporations wind up getting refunds instead of paying taxes. Fuck that.

[caseymoz]

62. And . . . we see how much good its doing Ireland and Iceland.

You're also confusing tax rate with taxes actually paid. Google paid 2.3 percent last year. The wealthy in the US are actually under-taxed by world standards, in any direct measure of taxes paid, and that's really what has been killing us since the '70s, especially when we try to keep up the largest standing military in the world.

[Deep13]

51. There has to be a way to keep the resources here. nt

[liberalmike27]

58. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah

Only if we let it. Change the rules, add some tariffs on products. It's the same old f_ing world, but we just changed the rules to allow them to rape the rest of us.

Change the rules back. Let them make the crap elsewhere, and tax it coming in. Tax any profits coming in. Tax any capital that moves out.

I'm sure we can do what we can do. Tax Wall Street, the more they move, the more we tax it.

[caseymoz]

60. Then those countries would get tired of them fast.

First, it's the US that's underpinning the "globalized world."

Second, they can move their money overseas, but you could tax it when they bring it here to use it, and it's hard to "globalize" your mansions and automobile collection anyway. Therefore, they would have to move themselves physically.Somehow I don't think those countries are going to appreciate wealthy American rejects, who were driven out because they refused to be of help. Probably they will move into more and more desperate countries to try to suck what little is left out of them, but somehow, when they have to move from the Yemen to Haiti they'll probably come to their senses-- or get killed.

Fact is, like the Soviet Union in the '80s, this cannot continue. We either tax the rich, or this country is going to become so bad, the rich are not going to stay anyway. They are violating the social underpinnings that lead to the maintenance of a currency and they are abusing the class system. They are undermining us.

[Democat]

12. This is a big mess, everyone needs to pay their fare share.

But certainly the rich are included in "everyone" and what's "fair" is up for debate.

[grahamhgreen]

20. In 1945 it was 94%. It's easy to see why we have a huge debt/deficit if you look at this CHART

[Dawson Leery]

21. 50% marginal rate for those making over 3 million!

NO DEDUCTIONS!

[LTX]

22. That's actually a fairly modest proposal.

I'd even call it conservative (in a strictly academic, as opposed to political, way).

What perplexes me is the cessation of progressive tax rate increases at $371,951. Thus, a person making $371,952 is considered in the same bracket as someone making $3 million, and both are taxed at 35% (itself preposterously low). I have never seen the reasoning behind this. Anywhere. Tax brackets and commensurate percentage tax rates should progress straight through your hypothetical $3 million up to at least $5 million, with the uppermost bracket in the historical average top range of 60 to 65%.

And I would love to see the "perverse incentive" argument make a comeback (higher tax brackets generate incentive to make more pre-tax income) as the logical inverse to the perfectly evidence-free argument that high taxes take away the incentive to generate more pre-tax income. Both are psycho-babble, but one's as good as the other.

[Dawson Leery]

24. In 1960 the highest bracket applied to incomes over 500k or so.

Today, that 500k is worth about 3 million or so.
I would place capital gains in this 50% bracket too.

[LTX]

26. Interesting. I hadn't noticed that earlier 500K bracket.

At that time (1960), I suppose there may have been the general feeling that 500K was such an astronomical sum that it was a logical, if still arbitrary, cut-off. But as I say, I can't find anywhere an articulation of why tax brackets terminate at any point before the highest taxable incomes reported to the IRS.

I'm not sure I'd apply the income tax brackets precisely to capital gains, since capital gains serve a very precise venture capital purpose. But I would certainly rid the tax code of distinctions between awarded options (and other forms of "alternative income") and base salary. That's an area of enormous abuse.

[Dawson Leery]

31. In addition, all loopholes would be closed for this new bracket.

[liberalmike27]

61. Top ten futures traders last year

Made an average of 2 billion, the top raking in 4 Billion, yet these guys didn't pay 15 percent in payroll taxes, only paying 15 percent capital gains.

All income needs to be taxed at FIT rates, and have payroll taxes added on to it. Capital gains taxes being so low makes for more market churning, benefitting the day-traders, short-term traders, and computer traders, over 401K normal investers' long-term investment strategies.

In effect, it allows those with the most money to extract money from the long-term traders, and makes for a more unstable market.

[RaleighNCDUer]

68. The reasoning behind it is that the tax rate is debated, legislated and

voted into being by millionaires.

[Buns_of_Fire]

46. And tax capital gains at the same rate.

And since we're revamping the Tax Code anyway, let's make more "brackets" (a LOT more) so that there isn't that political fear of "bracket creep" anymore* and the Code becomes more smoothly progressive -- wider "brackets" at the lower ends, narrowing up to the max (whatever it turns out to be).

I haven't completely fleshed it out yet, but I'll let my staff plug in the appropriate numbers (after they're finished working on that "cure for cancer" assignment I gave them last week).:-)




* Not that there's probably any fear of that in the foreseeable future...

[OlympicBrian]

23. A little-discussed, yet CRITICAL side to this issue...

America's Income Defense Industry
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-winters/americas-income-defense-i_b_772723.html

[Greyhound]

27. Good point. Over the decades the U.S. tax code has grown to the point that

taxes owed becomes nothing but opinion. Those that can afford a better opinion, and the legal muscle to push it, pay nothing or even get enormous refunds, while the rest of us are squeezed tighter and tighter to make up the difference.

Like immigration, the issue has become so large and so obscured that actual solutions are not even considered.

[OlympicBrian]

29. Yes, and...

how often have you heard this issue brought up in the mainstream media?

[greytdemocrat]

30. Fantastic idea!!!

And right before an election!!!

Let's see which Pol is going to endorse this stunning idea!!!

:eyes:

[Wednesdays]

39. What, taxing the rich?

Why are you so jittery about the subject?

[felix_numinous]

32. The American people need a bailout

let's incorporate ourselves first and then say we're too big to fail.

[maryf]

33. continue after the debts are paid...

the needs of too many need to be met... on edit, K&R!

[dionysus]

35. sure, let's do it.

[MindandSoul]

36. I totally agree!

AND we can resolve the social security issue by having people making over $500,000 a year pay the social security tax on ALL their earning above $500,000!
That would "secure" social security for the future!!!

[sakabatou]

37. FDR rates?

[laughingliberal]

42. K & R nt

[The Uncola]

47. I won't hold my breath waiting ...

.. for that to happen, as seeing how VERY little has been done for us nobodies by either party. Repukes are owned 100% by Fat Cats and the Dems over 50%. Neither will ever do the right thing if it doesn't line their coffers.

[blindpig]

48. Nice idea but good luck

How are ya gonna do that when they hold all the reins of power?

Regardless of which party or faction holds power the ruling class program of 'austerity' for the masses will be implemented, the differences being relatively irrelevant.

They will not relinquish this power willingly, only by emulating the French, Spanish and other Europeans will they come to understand our power and their peril.

[aquart]

52. No man should be so rich he has nothing left to buy but his government.

[grahamhgreen]

55. Nice quote!

[aquart]

73. Not a quote.

[grahamhgreen]

74. It is now!

I hope you don't mind if I quote you!

[aquart]

76. Not a bit. You're number 5.

I'm still counting on one hand, you'll notice.

[DesertFlower]

53. K&R. nt

[Brewman_Jax]

56. Don't forget the big corporations

if they paid a fraction of their corporate income taxes, there'd probably be no deficit. But, they get tax breaks without paying taxes--I guess that's no taxation WITH representation.

[txlibdem]

65. You mean like Exxon which paid zero taxes but got a tax refund check for $100 M

Yeah, crony capitalism is just great.

[Brewman_Jax]

66. Enron is on that list

their last 5 years (before the crash) Enron also paid no taxes and got back over $300M in tax refunds over that time period.

[txlibdem]

69. Good thing crooks and thieves get to contribute unlimited amounts to our politicians

We wouldn't want all those sweet deals to "trickle down" to the little people. Best to keep that stuff right at the top where it belongs...

:sarcasm:

[Raksha]

59. Too late to recommend, but kicking anyway. SOAK THE RICH!!!

[taught_me_patience]

71. Please explain how this will eliminate the 1T deficit

Sorry, but it's just a pipe dream. All taxes need to rise in conjuction with budget cuts to close this massive deficit.

[grahamhgreen]

75. Extropolate from here:

Eliminating the Bush tax cut (4% increase) will raise 700 billion in revenues in 10 years. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html)

Which means a 40% increase on the top tax rate to a rate similar to the pre-Reagan rate of 79.6% would yield 7 trillion in 10 years.

A 58% increase to 94% would yield over 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

So our deficit of 1.3 trillion would be gone in a little over a year and our DEBT would be gone in under 10 years (as we pay it down).

Simple! Done and done - and we haven't added the critical taxes to investment income yet!

[txlibdem]

77. There it is.

That's the best idea I've read all day.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget the federal budget is 3.52 Trillion Dollars.

The CIA says the GDP is over 14 Trillion Dollars, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

So we get a 25% flat tax on everything to pay for the budget.