It's time for the wealthy to return their illgotten gains

[Onlooker]

Let's face it, the reason the nation is in such dire straits is that there were massive abuses by Wall Street, not only the big banks, but also companies like WorldCom, Enron, Arthur Andersen, and so many others. Although these abuses were slowed, many investors (especially wealthy ones who could afford to sell high, rather than hold) made enormous profits off this corruption. But, the fact is the nation could afford all the corruption and theft. The wealthy in effect are in possession of stolen goods (money) and now they must return it.

The only way to get these ill-gotten gains back is through increasing taxes on the wealthy. If we taxed the wealthy to the same degree Eisenhower or Kennedy did, we could probably bring down the deficit, cut taxes for the middle class, and provide the poor with job training and other much needed services.

The fact is that Obama is acting like Carter with his gutlessness in the face of Wall Street, and Pelosi and Reid are not any better. The real shame is that if our leaders showed some courage and stood up to the wealthy, not only could they save the economy, they could save the jobs of dozens of Congresspeople as well.

[RandomThoughts]

1. It does seem that either people are scared of them.

Or like what they do.

Although some people do stand up to them, and often. It is true some see the giant that wall street money is, and find it hard to figure out what to do.


LOL

We Will Rock You. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iikKzQwgBJc


Note already had one guy throw rocks at me, that is where scars on left arm came from.

:shrug:

I think it better to play music :)

I wonder if they have been through that same feeling?

[okieinpain]

15. hell yeah they are scared. do you see the wealthy hiring anybody

even though they are making record amounts of money. hey mess with the rich and they will take their marbles and go home.

[DRR]

2. Wealthy bashing

This may seem like a reasonable solution on the surface, but
what about other "wealthy" people. I am a physician
and my wife and I make above $250,000 combined income. Like
many others we too lost and are losing a third of our
retirement savings, 529 college savings and home equity. I
spent a number of years serving in the armed forces hence did
not get any retirement funding options until a few years ago.
We are unlikely to get financial aide for our 3 children when
they go to college due to our income and expect to be getting
less social security for the same reason. We didn't obtain
risky mortgages or live above our means.  Why do we deserve to
pay even more taxes than we already do now after losing so
much money? Not everyone who is successful is a banker or a
billionaire. My wife and I consider ourselves to be part of a
"working family." In my opinion, if the country
feels we need higher taxes, then everyone should contribute
more--not just some. The top 10% of the income earners already
pay the lion's share of Federal taxes. What gives anyone the
notion to ask for even more of a portion without sharing the
load? 

[SnakeEyes]

3. Because they can afford it.

It's just that simple. Sorry but if you make 250K or more you're not working family. You can afford to give up a little more to help those that need it and those that deserve a better life. You've gotten now it's time to help others get theirs. Unfortunately there is no longer enough privately philanthropy so we must use the tax system. Perhaps you deserve to somehow get a carve out, I don't know all the details of your life, but it's just not easy to do and is subject to exploitation which is what the rich already do.

[DRR]

16. Not a working family?

Both my wife and I frequently work weekends and nights in addition to full time work week. When people discount others' work based on their earnings alone, it is insulting and comes across as mere envy.

I agree that generally the wealthier one is the more easier one can afford things, however I would like to point out that "afford" is a relative term. I was talking about Federal income taxes that only 1/2 of the adult population pays at all. A person who makes $40,000 thinks the person who makes $80,000 is rich. A poor person in Haiti looks at the poorest in America as well to do. I actually don't object to a higher tax if that's what the country needs, but why not every taxpayer pay a little more then?(say the "rich" pay 4% more and the middle class 1%") What I hear is always someone richer should pay more and they should pay less. I found it interesting that the Health Care bill could only seem to be passed when the President promised the middle class wouldn't pay a dime, but again it was ok for the "rich" to pay the bill. Imagine all the "compassionate" people of the country interested in insuring the 47 million uninsured, but weren't willing to have their own taxes raised one bit.

[indepat]

5. It's not wealthy-bashing to feel that Warren B. should not be sending a less percentage of his total

income to Uncle Sammie than does his secretary (this was Warren's observation, if my recollection is correct, not mine). Moreover, when the gipper first foisted his voodoo economics upon America, it was a two-pronged inspiration: (1) substantially increase payroll taxes (regressive) in both the rate and base amount up to the social security maximum of some $40,000-$50,000(?) and (2) slash the top income tax bracket to 28% (which triggered at about $20,000 taxable income for a single tax payer) and a second tax bracket of 15%. Poof, it's magic. What we got was this poor schmuck, earning about $30,000 and just getting by, receiving a $1,000 raise of which Uncle Sammie is sent 35.35% (28% + 7.35% payroll taxes - but wait, it gets better, for income tax must also be paid on the 7.35% payroll tax which has never been seen nor may ever be seen. Let's then suppose a baseball player receives a $100,000 raise on his $1,000,000 contract: he sends Uncle Sammie only 28% of that increase whereas that poor, just-getting-by, schmuck is sending Uncle Sammie 28% + 7.35%, + income tax on that 7.35% payroll tax. Then in a few years, the baseball player is enjoying much investment success and his capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate. Then throughout the years, those payroll taxes had not been set aside in a trust fund to pay that poor schmuck's future benefits because all payroll-tax revenues exceeding outlays were immediately being spent on other government programs to the ultimate tune of trillions of dollars, like for those $600 toilet seats for the military. Then comes along junior's tax cuts and, by this time, that baseball player owns scads of dividend-paying equity securities on which the dividends were being taxed at a lower rate. But the Federal debt has now ballooned some tenfold from gipper's days, and Alan Greenspan, who thought junior's tax cuts were just a-ok hunky-dory, proclaimed junior's tax cuts need to be paid for by a reduction in social security benefits, and by God, BHO, through his handpicked Cat-food Commission, is going to make that happen. In the meanwhile, throw in the fact that about two-thirds of highly profitable US corporations pay no US income taxes, perpetual pre-emptive wars, deregulation (thanks bubba) and a laizze-faire approach to governance and you get exactly where we are today: a collapsed economy, vast un- and under-employment, and a burgeoning Federal debt. But, let's don't ask giant corporations and especially don't ask the most affluent among us, those who own +/- 95% of the wealth, to pay an equitable share of the tax burden, for that would be wealth-bashing. And do not be influenced by the fact that the good ole USofA has fallen to/is near the bottom in almost all measurements of quality of life, all these sacrifices in the quality of life for society in general and a burgeoning/widening in the inequality of income, all brought to you by design of and made possible by your friendly RW government.

[Onlooker]

6. It's expensive to run a great nation

I certainly think we should target capital gains and the very wealthy before we target people like you, but the fact remains our nation is short of cash and taxes are the only means of getting the cash to reduce the deficit and provide the poor with some opportunity to lift themselves up. I think taxes should be seen as a tool. Right now, we need to raise money to fix the economy. Once the economy is fixed, we'll be able to lower taxes again. In the meantime, your situation is not nearly as bad as those who have no assets, are deep in debt, are struggling to feed their kids, and are unemployed. Furthermore, you are in a better position than many people to invest in the companies that get our tax dollars, so even if your taxes went up chances are some of that money would end up back in your pocket.

[LAGC]

11. Welcome to DU!

Did you cut-and-paste that article you posted from somewhere?

Just curious.

[Ken Burch]

12. This is obviously cut-and-pasted from a right-wing website.

That's just the Republican line in that post.

[smalll]

13. You know, you'll have a lot of supporters here, even if they don't speak up (Mr. One-Post) ---

You're a physician; that's kind of "meh" --

but if you make 250K in the "creative class" (in Hollywood) -- or you gallivant around the country doing nothing very much as a consultant -- with a Mac!

as long as you windsurf rather than golf
as long as you spend too much on sushi rather than chateaubriand
as long as you wear birkenstocks rather than wingtips
as long as your people were at Woodstock rather than (or in addition to) on the Mayflower --

-- you're golden!

For many here, it's not about rich vs. poor, it's about the "hip" rich vs. the "un-hip" rich (and poor.) It's not about the benjamins; it's about the social aesthetics! :shrug:

[Donnachaidh]

14. you make over a quarter of a mil and are whining because you won't get financial aid?

Give.me.a.fucking.break.

While kids who go into serious debt just to "get" an education - you are whining that YOU can't get on that *gravy train* of financial aid for your kids.

Take out a second mortgage. Finance your OWN kids with that combined QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLAR YEARLY SALARIES.

I'm sure your accountant will find some way to turn those charges into write-offs. :sarcasm:

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[DRR]

17. Whining

Your mean spirited message notwithstanding misinterpreted my note. I was not complaining about not getting financial aid. I was merely pointing out it is a large expense that I need to plan for. If my 3 children were smart enough(I wish) to go to say, Harvard (close to $55,000/year total),I would need to save $220K(4 years) x 3=$660,000--after taxes which means I have to earn over 1.2 million and that's not accounting for cost increases. A middle class family with a smart child could get most of the benefit for free--without loans! (Check it out. Many well endowed higher learning institutions will ensure students graduate with no debt.) I was complaining that since my retirement and school savings went down by a third due to the economy that it doesn't seem fair to simply assume the "wealthy" can afford and deserve to pay more taxes. Any group of savers (wealthy or middle class) got greatly hurt by the recession. People who don't or can't save or live off of credit didn't get hurt as badly, unless they lost their jobs in which case they will likely pay no federal tax anyway.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

4. This is Obama's Fault?

Going back to the Eisenhower Administration -- which is before Obama was born? It wasn't Kennedy's fault, or Johnson's fault, or Nixon's fault, or Carter's fault, or Reagan's fault or Bush Sr's fault of Clinton's fault or Bush Jr's fault?

It's Obama's fault?

Fifty years of tax policy that has been gradually shifting the tax burden from wealth and corporations and onto the middle class and an entrenched corporate lobbying system is somehow all Obama's fault?

Whatever.

[TheKentuckian]

7. Asking him to work to reverse the disparity is not the same as blaming him

We are not obligated to continue the past but to use the present to build a better future.

[Honeycombe8]

8. The tax cuts on the wealthy should expire; they were only meant to be temporary.

Of course we KNEW when they were passed that they were winking as they said the word "temporary."

But I'm getting tired of hearing people rag on "the wealthy," like it's one big group doing the same thing and owning the same things. And assuming that ONLY the wealthy got something out of the boom in recent years.

A lot of middle class people have 401Ks and made money through the stock market in those accounts. Should they give back that money?

Some people maybe got slightly larger raises or bonuses because their rich boss was doing well. Should they give that money back?

Not all wealthy people are guilty of whatever you think they're guilty of, just like not all poor people are violent criminals or druggies.

[LatteLibertine]

9. Umm

the top 20% of our nations holds 85% of our wealth and 61% of all income.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Our buddy Dub-yah actually said out loud at a town meeting once with a chuckle, "Real rich people don't pay taxes, they dodge them." I will give him credit for being honest in that instance.

I feel everyone should pay some manner of taxes too. That said, it's only common sense you aren't going to get a lion's share from folks with little wealth and low income.

I'd gladly trade places with the wealthy who are being oppressed by taxes. What did the Bush policies do for us besides create a large deficit and transfer more wealth upwards? The economy seemed fine under Clinton's hand.

I will be voting Wall Street lackeys out of office regardless of party. Our current system is rigged and extremely corrupt, it must be reformed.

[LatteLibertine]

10. Most of us do not hate the wealthy

We despise people who are excessively greedy and wealthy as well.

The sort of fellow who would fire many people who are living check to check so he could get an annual pay increase on a million dollar salary. Or perhaps a CEO who would knowingly defy regulations despite the possible harm and death that may cause because it's cheaper to pay a fine.

It's about greedy wealthy people who have virtually zero empathy or compassion. It's about people that don't care what far reaching impact their irrational greed has on many folks around them. People are basically objects without feelings to these sorts.

[cliffordu]

18. I love it when people call two of the finest humans to ever occupy

The white house cowards.

:hurts:

In your simplistic macho view of life, maybe, but the realities are a little different.......