Or we could just tax the rich like we used to.

[readmoreoften]

Eom.

[gateley]

1. I'm against ANYBODY paying 90% taxes, but is it too much to

ask they pay the same RATE we do? That only seems fair. :shrug:

[readmoreoften]

5. How about 90% after the first 2 million and 95% of capital gains after the first

2 million?

[gateley]

8. No - I think it should be the same rate across the board. I don't

want to 'punish' those who make a lot of money, even though I think many of them are greedy motherfuckers.

AND they shouldn't get any of the breaks they get to take advantage of now. Same rate for every person, period. Except (I'm changing my mind), those UNDER a certain income would pay a relatively lower rate.

[Enrique]

16. are there plans you have seen that might work?

or countries now with flat taxes that you see as fair?

[gateley]

20. No. I've not educated myself on other countries, it's just my

gut reaction that nobody should pay that high a percentage on what is essentially THEIR money.

Maybe a cleaned up, pared down version of what we have now? Under X, you pay this percent, between X and X, you pay this, and so on. But it think it should be do-able and fair for all. Our government must be made to adhere to a budget, just like the American people have to. This goes for States as well.

Jeez, do I sound like a Republican? :scared:

What would you recommend? I'm honestly open minded and flexible and welcome any opinions, facts, that allows me to understand more and shape my opinion further. I'm never married to any stance I have.

[Enrique]

30. i would recommend reading about the reasons for the progressive tax

and also look at the people arguing for the flat tax. They tend to be the worst types of right-wingers, like Steve Forbes.

I have heard of some countries that have a VAT combined with a somewhat flat tax, that turn out to be progressive in some way I've forgotten. Maybe someone else knows better.

[FogerRox]

47. Dear member, please dispense with the right wing propaganda.

81% of Americans want a progressive tax that taxes millionaires via a geometric progression of tax brackets.



That puts you in the extreme minority, 19%.

"Progressive taxation has a long history: As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

Simply put, what you advocate for is the tax policy that taxed working and middle classes out of the economy over 30 yrs, and is a contributor to the financial and economic troubles we are currently worried about.

And I bet you feel good about that?

[EOTE]

63. Do you sound like a Republican?

Yes. Well, you asked. Republicans are constantly complaining about the tax rates for the wealthy, never mentioning that the top one percent now own 70% of all economic assets. They just complain about others not shouldering their fair share. The wealthy have never had it so easy at a time when everyone else is struggling. The rich need to pay their fair share, they haven't been for at least a good 30 years. The rich in this country are why we're in the economic dire straits we're in now.

So, to summarize, yes. You're taking the republican position. I'm really surprised you don't know that.

[kath]

28. So you don't believe in progressive taxation??!?

Or do you not grasp the concept of brackets and MARGINAL tax rates??

[noiretextatique]

32. in our current tax system, wealthier people get far more deductions

than the poor and middle class. low income earners do have the earned income credit, but for those in the middle who don't own homes...we are basically screwed when it come to ways to reduce taxable income. someone who owns a house and a vacation home can deduct the interest on those homes. i made 68k last year, and i can't itemize because i don't own a home, so i pay income taxes on all my income, less my personal exemption and standard deduction. a person who makes 10x as much as i do can take advantage of itemized deductions, business, rental and investment losses, etc...and rate the same amount as i do. there is nothing fair about that.
there used to be more fairness when we could deduct credit card interest and when non-itemizers could deduct charitable deductions, but all of that was done away with to skew the taxing formulas to favor the wealthy. we need to raise the tax rates on the wealthy and get rid of loopholes that benefit ONLY the wealthy. and we also need to give the middle class more deductions, so that group will have more money to spend and save. it is a complete MYTH that raising tax rates on the wealthy is a "punishment."

[JHB]

33. It isn't about punishing them...

...although that makes a handy bumper-sticker.

It creates a disincentive for those already in the economic stratosphere to simply extract more. It changes the decisions they make about how they make money and how they manage their investments.

If high amounts of personal income are heavily taxed, you get more bang for the buck by re-investing resources back into a company rather than simply taking them as personal income.

How many Wall Street big-money gambles don't make as much sense if the lion's share of the big payoff goes to Uncle Sam? Speculation and liquidating companies that just aren't "profitable enough" for Wall Street isn't as attractive. Building value becomes worth more than inflating bubbles.

Sure there were plenty of loopholes to shelter income from taxes. Was that entirely a bad thing? Some of those dodges really did help circulate the money at lower levels.

It's about trying to get closer to equality of opportunity by lightening the load from those trying to get ahead, and shifting it to those who already are ahead.

[ZombieHorde]

35. Living in extreme wealth is punishment?

Punish me!

[FogerRox]

40. We are at a historically low era of deductions and exemptions.

We used to use deductions and exemptions to incentivize capital flowing to emerging tech and markets. Today we could do the same for solar and wind.


Otherwise:

Why should I build factories to build solar panels for a 5%, 6%, 7%, annual return...when I can engage in commodities speculation and make a 15% to 25% annually. This is what the "level playing field" yields. Capital tends to flow very well, it flows nearly everywhere, including places that maybe we don't need a high volume of capital to flow to.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/30/990232/-Raise-taxes-and-close-the-loopholess,-right?showAll=yes&via=blog_694100

[Angry Dragon]

49. Taxes are punishment??

[duhneece]

59. I don't think of 90% as punishing the rich

I think it recognizes that they could never have made millions and millions without the infrastructure (public education for employees and customers, our legal system, clean water, roads, bridges, fire depts, etc) that others before them sacrificed for in the form of taxes. The 90% is just them 'passing on' those investments in infrastructure.

[kenfrequed]

61. Flat taxes are regressive

Arguing for them puts you more in the other camp I think.

[EOTE]

62. So you think we should have a REGRESSIVE tax system.

That's basically what a flat tax is. The wealthy should pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes, that's what a progressive tax system is and that's part of the reason why America was once a great country.

[Vanje]

64. You and republican rich dude Steve Forbes,

are in complete agreement on the flat tax thing.

Congratulations. You are a 'New Democrat'.

The sad thing is that 'New Democrats' are indistinguishable from Old Republicans.

[Enrique]

6. 90% would be marginal rates

no one ever paid 90% on their entire income.

[gateley]

10. I don't think they should pay 90% on ANY part of their income.

I don't think that's fair. I also don't think they should be able to maneuver around using loopholes that were implemented for their benefit. No loopholes.

[Enrique]

15. is it the whole concept of progressive taxation?

or is 90% just too high, you might be ok with say 50%? Or does it have to be entirely flat for you to see it as fair.

[gateley]

18. To have it REALLY be fair, I'd say same rate for all, with the

exception of those who make under a certain amount (don't know what that amount should be). They should pay a greatly reduced rate.

If I make $10M a year, I pay 30%, if you make $50K a year, you pay 30%. No breaks at all for me, though, no sneaky loopholes.

Although, now that I see that in my own type(!) I'm thinking that doesn't sound all that fair after all. I can live on 30% less than $10M far better than you can live on 30% less than 50K.

I'm going to have to re-think this. :7

BUT, I still think 90% is punitive, and I'm still against such a high rate.

[FogerRox]

45. Thomas Jefferson seems to disagree

"Progressive taxation has a long history: As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise

[droidamus2]

17. That is one of the many problems with the flat tax idea

The flat tax is usually sold along with the idea that Congress would do away with all the tax breaks, tax giveaways and other gimmicks that the very rich use to avoid paying taxes. The Congress that enacted a flat tax might even do that, but do you really believe the wealthy wouldn't immediately work to get anybody out of office that wouldn't start reinstating some of those breaks (under different names of course) and thus the wealthy would get the benefits of having their base tax rate lowered and would eventually get back all the breaks they 'gave up' to get that flat tax.

As far as 'punishing rich people' I don't think that is the idea. As we have seen in this country allowing individuals or families to accumulate massive amounts of wealth effects the way our democratic republic runs. These people are able to subvert our system by lobbying and outright buying our representatives and other government officials. So one of the big reasons for we as a society through our government to set high taxes on money made over a certain amount is as a control on the abuses that wealth accumulation can bring.

[truedelphi]

58. + 10,000 n/t

[TalkingDog]

19. So a guy who gets to have the government send the military to protect his oil ships

from Somali pirates, shouldn't pay more in taxes than I do?

When do I get to call up the military to perform actions on mybehalf? Maybe like... clearing the kudzu off my acreage or digging those privies for me.


If you get more benefits, and it helps you make more money, you should pay more in taxes.

Grandma is getting benefits so she won't end up eating cat food, not so she can open a uranium mine in Brazil.

[gateley]

21. He should get a bill for that. Part of his operating expenses

should be to have his own protection, and if he doesn't, then he has to pay. Just my opinion.

I don't understand the correlation between your question and Grandma's uranium mine.

[TalkingDog]

25. The overarching thread is about balancing the budget.

Taxation of the rich, who use more resources and utilize more services should pay more. (They don't get billed for military excursions to save their oil tankers... the republicans would have a field day with that one)

Grandma's "entitlements" (which are being discussed as part of the BUDGET) are not equivalent to a rich guy opening a uranium mine in Brazil and all of the tax benefits he will enjoy for that because he is being a good corporate citizen.

Grandma only wants to avoid eating cat food which costs us very little in terms of both revenues and outlays... Helping a businessman open a uranium mine or protect his oil tanker on the other hand....

[JHB]

38. That's the part of the income that RW billionaires...

...like the Kochs, Mellon-Scaife, Waltons, and so on, plus their multiple-multimillionaie fellow travelers, use to actively work against your interests: fund think spin tanks to promote their views and interests, fund lobbyists, bribe politicians donate to political campaigns, hire union-busters, etc. etc. etc.


At that level, "fair" has nothing to do with it. It's self defense.

[slackmaster]

23. Nobody ever actually paid the 90% marginal tax rate

Or only a very small number of people. That rate kicked in at a level far more than even top corporate executives were paid back then, and people who did earn that kind of money figured out ways of making it not earned income therefore not subject to being taxed as such.

[FogerRox]

42. N one, effective rates were 44%-45% even at the peak of 94%

[grahamhgreen]

29. If they don't pay, then you and I will have to pay for them. THAT is not fair.

[MadinMo]

31. Absolutely.

[FogerRox]

39. Nobody ever paid 90%, effective tax rates were 44-45%.

SO you want to give the wealthy a huge tax break.... go figure




Median individual income is 26k, thats the 15% bracket.

[Mimosa]

57. Obviously they 'got around' the 90%

People nowadays don't realise if the rate were higher they'd still get around it but the treasury would be better off. BETTER YET why don't we make a TAX CODE which would reward the rich for making JOBS?

[librechik]

2. How do you propose we make them pay their taxes? They are too used to NOT paying

And they either are the Congress or own enough of it to even make repealing the Bush tax cuts impossible, a 4% "rise" in their rate. That they could easily afford.

How do we make them?

[readmoreoften]

3. How did Eisenhower do it?

Or maybe late capitalism is at its end game and no longer functions. One would think that 99% of the population could figure out how to make a few thousand people adhere to a demand.

[librechik]

22. the idea that the people influence the congress is a little iffy

and yes, "Late Capitalism" in the US has reached the end of its positive influence, IMO, and now just infests our legislatures with the intent to institute some form of slave labor. The only way it was tolerable was when it was strictly regulated, and they have made that impossible.

[Kaleva]

46. He inherited the tax rates from WWII.

[hack89]

52. Did he really actually do it?

the tax rate is meaningless if the tax code is riddled with loopholes. The rich can afford the really smart people that show them how to avoid taxes. It has always been that way.

[FogerRox]

53. tax breaks for emerging tech and markets were an important part of the New Deal

Ask yourself why the US has so few factories that build solar panels and wind turbines?

Why should I build factories to build solar panels for a 5%, 6%, 7%, annual return...when I can engage in commodities speculation and make a 15% to 25% annually?

Of course if we increased taxes, and happened to give some of it back to incentivize building these factories, in the US, creating US jobs, would you still complain?

More on this idea

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/30/990232/-Raise-taxes-and-close-the-loopholess,-right?showAll=yes&via=blog_694100

[Enrique]

4. repeat after me

"job creators" :sarcasm:

[readmoreoften]

7. Aka: yacht owners.

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. I make boats.

Business would be better if more people could afford them rather than a handful of people in the market for bigger ones.

If nothing else, the uber rich need someone to sell their trade-in to.

[treestar]

9. So when is Boehner going to agree to that?

When will the 112th House agree to that? Elections have consequences.

[readmoreoften]

12. When both he and Harry Reid are afraid of the rabble at their doors.

And when you and Obama are afraid too. Just like the Republicans are afraid of their base.

[treestar]

43. So you recommend fear rather than a representative government?

[Dragonfli]

50. Who does this govt represent? 80% of it's citizens want higher taxes on the rich and

no fucking around with their "entitlements".

You call what Obama and the Republicans are doing representing the people?

Does representative government now mean doing the exact opposit of what the citizens want?

You sound foolish or right wing to me, I am not sure which.

[treestar]

54. It represents the way the Constitution says

Which has states and gives 2 Senators to each state even if the state is small, giving smaller states disproportionate representation. So the government may do what the majority of citizens overall do not want, due to states' influence as states.

But you sound like you have an argument with the way the U.S. government is set up.

Yes the Republicans represent the people who elected them. Elections have consequences. In 2010, the public showed it was so dumb it thought that just throwing the SOBs out was enough to change things.

[Dragonfli]

55. elections do indeed have consequences, I should have never voted for a Republican loving pretend Dem

for President, he listens to them and ignores the rest of his constituents unless it is to insult them.
They are fucking us over with his help, I am glad you feel he only has to represent the Republicans and neo-liberals (ex moderate Republicans).

No one is representing the 80%, certainly not Obama and his new found PERSONAL passion for austerity and "entitlement" reform.
He should have been more clear about this fetish when running, at least then he would not be a liar that made false promises to get elected.

[treestar]

65. Obama is dealing with a Republican House

and needs it to come up with a debt ceiling bill. That's the reality and you're trying to pretend it's not.

Whether that is Republican or crazy, I don't know.

And don't call me a Republican. I hate Republicans - they are the ones to blame for the current problem.

[Dragonfli]

66. Including false flag Democrats (R's that call themselves D) - tell me

When all the deals being discussed are completely Republican, where is Dem Representation? We have the Senate and the White house, When they are in the minority, they still have the power, and even when we have full control, they still have the power. Very fishy , or is it Vichy? Also I don't think that when 80% from all sides want the opposite of what is being discussed that very many of the politicians are representing The will of their constituency, they are corrupt, and Obama's seeming weakness or inability to negotiate with both sides rather than just try to agree on common ground to take money from programs and considering only mild (if any) contribution from those that destroyed the economy one can only conclude that only 20% of all politicians are not corrupt and purchased and rather glaringly, including Obama himself.

Why did he not start with the progressive budget plan on one side and the tea stains on the other? why start with a fuck the people on one side and fuck the people even harder on the other side unless all he was seeking was a good bi-partisan fucking.

I already know the answer, you on the other hand will keep taking it up the ass with a smile on your face, you may not be a Republican but you support those that screw you and ME just as they do, so perhaps you are merely foolish and not an R or perhaps you are a false flag operative, then end result is the same


I can't talk with bots, all I will get back is talking point bullshit and I don't have the patience for it so goodbye.

[The Magistrate]

56. As The Good Book Says, Ma'am: 'Fear Of The Lord is The Beginning Of Wisdom'

[RobertSeattle]

11. Democrats should use this like the " in bed" phrase

:-)

[readmoreoften]

13. +1

[Gregorian]

14. What about a Financial Fairness Doctrine?

If we could simplify the system, and make it so that we can identify when people are earning income, then we can simply tax at an even rate across the board.

Nothing is simple when we're dealing with modern monkeys, but things are way way out of hand.

[Starry Messenger]

24. NO, you'd just hurt their feelings.

We all know how sensitive they are.

[Proles]

26. I see nothing wrong with a steeply

progressive income tax.

Last time I checked, being a rich person who pays high taxes is still better than being a middle-class person who pays lower taxes.

Yet people seem to think high taxes on the rich will somehow "discourage" people from working harder to reach a higher status?

[FogerRox]

44. Thomas Jefferson on progressive taxation

"Progressive taxation has a long history: As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

[Fire Walk With Me]

27. When GE get away with paying NO taxes, I'd have to agree wholeheartely!

[Armstead]

34. Kick for simple clarity

[Blue_Tires]

36. or slash the defense budget by 15% each year for the next five years

[Raksha]

37. But that would make too much sense.

[DearAbby]

41. They want to take us back to 1960's spending

1960's tax rates.

[CrispyQ]

48. Tax investment income like labor. --nt

[hack89]

51. And just like before, tax free bonds become very popular. nt