Tax the Rich!

[J.T]

The corporate tax rate is 35 percent but thanks to loopholes they pay less than 18 percent, lower than the vast majority of low and middle-income taxpayers.

...

FACT: Exxon-Mobil
Profits: $45 billion in 2009
Federal taxes paid: ZERO

FACT: General Electric
Profits: $10.3 billion in 2009
Federal taxes paid: ZERO
Tax Rebates Received $1.1 billion

FACT: Bank of America (BOA)
Profits: $4.4 billion in 2010
Federal taxes paid: ZERO
TARP Bailout $45 billion in 2008-09

...
We Say Enough is Enough!



End the Bush-era tax giveaways to banks, corporations and wealthy individuals.
Close corporate tax loopholes, especially billions in tax subsidies for the oil companies.
Raise new revenues by restoring 70% tax rate on incomes over $1 million.
Raise $150 billion a year by imposing a financial transaction tax on Wall Street speculation.
Cut the military budget by half. Bring troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Create jobs in a major public works program to repair our nation’s infrastructure and to make our nation number one in “green industry.” Target the jobs to hard-hit inner city communities and the rural poor.
Fully fund a national health care program and drastically increase federal aid to education, Pell Grants, and other vital human needs programs.
Remove the cap on the Social Security payroll tax, so that CEOs and hedge fund managers pay the same rate as the rest of us.




http://cpusa.org/save-the-nation-tax-corporations-tax-the-rich

[darin]

YEAH! To HELL with the RICH PEOPLE! They serve no greater good! We should tax them until EVERYONE Makes $2M per year in govt Subsidies.

:-/

[Gunny]

YEAH! To HELL with the RICH PEOPLE! They serve no greater good! We should tax them until EVERYONE Makes $2M per year in govt Subsidies.

:-/

Where does it end though? Don't get me wrong ... I'm not for "taxing the rich"; however, I AM for them paying their taxes. That would include the "rich" Dems/lefties that avail themselves of using the same unscrupulous, capitalist business practices as those they accuse. I don't notice any of these lefty public figures living a life of austerity.

When the Soros' of the world start paying what's demanded of the right by the left, THEN they might have room to open their polesmokers.

[gabosaurus]

Where does it end though? Don't get me wrong ... I'm not for "taxing the rich"; however, I AM for them paying their taxes. That would include the "rich" Dems/lefties that avail themselves of using the same unscrupulous, capitalist business practices as those they accuse. I don't notice any of these lefty public figures living a life of austerity.


So you think Dems are the only ones who don't pay their taxes. If so, I think one shell too many has gone off outside your pumpkin head.

My answer is always this -- If one economic class earns more significantly more than the next, who should pay more taxes? Republicans have always opposed higher taxes for the wealthy because that is where the majority of their campaign contributions come from.

Stupid people tend to forget that this country runs on tax dollars. You can't decide you want fewer taxes and more services. It doesn't work that way.

Interesting that many of the same people who want to slash social security, medicare and workers pensions similarly don't want to cut the same benefits to veterans and company big shots.
If we are slashing across the board, let's cut the defense budget by 40 percent. Starting with all the dead weight in the Pentagon.

[revelarts]

I was with you JT until you hit that 70% Tax on 1 million or more. :puke:

[Missileman]

My answer is always this -- If one economic class earns more significantly more than the next, who should pay more taxes? Republicans have always opposed higher taxes for the wealthy because that is where the majority of their campaign contributions come from.

NEWSFLASH! The wealthy already pay more taxes. Taxing them more is not the answer. If you confiscated 100% of every cent earned over $250K, it would only account for HALF of the budget deficit. We have a spending problem, NOT a revenue problem. There are tax loopholes that need to be closed, but rates are plenty high enough.


Stupid people tend to forget that this country runs on tax dollars. You can't decide you want fewer taxes and more services. It doesn't work that way.

When they stop spending millions on shrimp treadmills I won't have a problem chipping in more if needed. I'll be damned if I'm going to be agreeable to sending more money to DC just so they can piss it away.



Interesting that many of the same people who want to slash social security, medicare and workers pensions similarly don't want to cut the same benefits to veterans and company big shots.
If we are slashing across the board, let's cut the defense budget by 40 percent. Starting with all the dead weight in the Pentagon.

Before we touch even a penny of any US programs, we need to cut all foreign aid and end all benefits going to non-US entities here in this country.

Extending retirement age is hardly slashing SS...you should get your talking points from places other than MSNBC.

Further, veterans earned their pensions, in a lot of cases in exchange for blood, in EVERY case in exchange for sweat and tears. If there's a class of citizens who should be protected from budget cuts it's veterans. The problem is, a lot of legislators love to target vets because they know most of us will dutifully take the hit and carry on...it's how most of us are wired.

[gabosaurus]

NEWSFLASH! The wealthy already pay more taxes. Taxing them more is not the answer. If you confiscated 100% of every cent earned over $250K, it would only account for HALF of the budget deficit. We have a spending problem, NOT a revenue problem. There are tax loopholes that need to be closed, but rates are plenty high enough.

My family is in the upper tax bracket. I know about taxation. I agree with closing loopholes. But the government (both parties) don't agree. They prefer accepting campaign donations in return for special favors.



When they stop spending millions on shrimp treadmills I won't have a problem chipping in more if needed. I'll be damned if I'm going to be agreeable to sending more money to DC just so they can piss it away.


I agree with you. Pressure Congress to eliminate earmarks and special interest tags. Vote for the line item veto. No one will agree with you because all of them are looking out for themselves instead of taxpayers.



Before we touch even a penny of any US programs, we need to cut all foreign aid and end all benefits going to non-US entities here in this country.


I agree with you here as well. Unfortunately, special interests require that we suck up to countries like China and Israel. I would prefer to cute foreign aid to all countries and remove our military forces from all countries. Particularly the Middle East.



Extending retirement age is hardly slashing SS...you should get your talking points from places other than MSNBC.

I don't watch MSNBC. Can you say that you don't watch Fox?



Further, veterans earned their pensions, in a lot of cases in exchange for blood, in EVERY case in exchange for sweat and tears. If there's a class of citizens who should be protected from budget cuts it's veterans. The problem is, a lot of legislators love to target vets because they know most of us will dutifully take the hit and carry on...it's how most of us are wired.

If we are going to cut the budget, we can't create special classes of people. Can you say that police, fire, first responders and other dangerous occupations don't put out blood, sweat and tears? How many vets have to wait until 65 or 70 to retire? Is anyone threatening to yank your benefits?
The Pentagon is way overstaffed. Way too many military men have been "kicked upstairs" and do repetitive desk duties?
A good example is teachers. Many have been laid off, with the excuse the those remaining can teach more kids and cover more duties. The military could easy do with fewer desk jockeys, "advisers" and senior officers.
If we are cutting across the board, everyone needs to contribute equally.

[red states rule]

Liberals see the "rich" as a renewable money source and ignore how much in taxes they are paying currently




Top 400 Taxpayers


The IRS puts out an interesting tax document each year, looking at the returns of the nation’s 400 highest income tax paying people. The most recent year of complete data is 2007, when 143 million individuals filed tax returns.

Some of the data is quite astonishing:

• The top 400 U.S. individual taxpayers got 1.59% of the nation’s household income in 2007 — 3X the p% they got in the 1990s.

• The top 400 paid 2.05% of all individual income taxes in 2007.

• Only 220 of the top 400 were in the top marginal tax bracket.

• Average tax rate of the 400 = 16.6% — the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 in 1992.

• Minimum annual income to make the top 400 = $138.8 million.

• Top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income; they paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes.

• 81.3% of income was from capital gains, dividends or interest. Salaries and wages? Just 6.5%.

• The top 400 list changes from year to year: 1992-2007, it contained 3,472 different taxpayers (out of a maximum 6400).

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/04/top-400-taxpayers/




With $137.9 billion in income the libs could tax these 400 people at 100% and even cover one year of Obama's defict


and who pays the taxes in the US?

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html


So you think Dems are the only ones who don't pay their taxes. If so, I think one shell too many has gone off outside your pumpkin head.

My answer is always this -- If one economic class earns more significantly more than the next, who should pay more taxes? Republicans have always opposed higher taxes for the wealthy because that is where the majority of their campaign contributions come from.

Stupid people tend to forget that this country runs on tax dollars. You can't decide you want fewer taxes and more services. It doesn't work that way.

Interesting that many of the same people who want to slash social security, medicare and workers pensions similarly don't want to cut the same benefits to veterans and company big shots.
If we are slashing across the board, let's cut the defense budget by 40 percent. Starting with all the dead weight in the Pentagon.

Gabby, Obama has already had his tax increase





The tax hikes are as follows:

1. 10% tax on indoor tanning services;
2. Eliminate tax deduction for those employers who provide Medicare prescription drug coverage;
3. Increase HSA penalties by 50% to 20%;
4. Cap employer contributions to tax-free FSAs at $2,500. As of now, the “limit” is determined by your business;
5. Prohibit HSA funds from being used to purchase over-the-counter drugs;
6. Medicare surtax for individuals making $200,000 and families earning $250,000, as well as a 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income for these taxpayers;
7. You will have to spend 10% of your income on medical expenses before making itemized deductions. Currently, the starting point is 7.5%;
8. Employer mandate. All businesses with more than 50 employees will have to offer approved health plans or pay a tax of $2,000 per employee;
9. A Cadillac tax will charge high-value plans ($10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families) a 40% excise tax;
10. Individual mandate. Everyone much purchase health insurance or pay a fee. According to the National Review, it “starts in 2014 at $95 or 1 percent of gross income, whichever is greater; and maxes out in 2016 at the greater of $695 or 2.5 percent of income.”

The 13th change would require employers to disclose health costs on W-2s.

http://www.ntu.org/governmentbytes/obamacare-tax-hikes.html




You could cut all funding for the DOD and even cover one year of Obama's debt Gabby

Obama's is ranting about the corporate jet owners yet the corporate jet tax credit was in his "stimulus" plan





First 100 Days
Stimulus Includes Tax Break to Promote Private Jet Sales

Published February 18, 2009
| AP



Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes.

The incentive -- first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks -- sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.


The aviation industry, which is cutting jobs as it suffers from declining shipments and canceled orders, hopes the tax break in the economic-stimulus bill just signed by President Barack Obama will persuade more companies to buy planes and snap a slump in general aviation that began last year.

"This is exactly the type of financial incentive that should be included in a stimulus bill," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., in an interview. His state lost at least 6,900 jobs at Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft, both based in Wichita.

Roughly 11,000 jobs have been cut in the last three months by the 65 or so member companies of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, an industry trade group.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/stimulus-includes-tax-break-promote-private-jet-sales#ixzz1SRlFcqwg




Look what is happening at the state level where Dems want to punish success.

They end up losing revenue




snip
Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.

And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."

More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.

Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

[Missileman]

If we are going to cut the budget, we can't create special classes of people. Can you say that police, fire, first responders and other dangerous occupations don't put out blood, sweat and tears? How many vets have to wait until 65 or 70 to retire? Is anyone threatening to yank your benefits?
The Pentagon is way overstaffed. Way too many military men have been "kicked upstairs" and do repetitive desk duties?
A good example is teachers. Many have been laid off, with the excuse the those remaining can teach more kids and cover more duties. The military could easy do with fewer desk jockeys, "advisers" and senior officers.
If we are cutting across the board, everyone needs to contribute equally.

The entire federal government is overstaffed, not just the military. During last years near-government shutdown, there were news stories about 800,000 non-essential government employees. If we're going to thin the military, we need to thin those 800,000 too.

As for teachers instead of soldiers, I'll get on board just as soon as teacher's unions are outlawed. I have no interest in paying for some ineffective POS to indoctrinate kids in liberalism because they're protected from firing by the NEA.

[CSM]

I'm all for thinning the military. I am all for thinning the government work force too. I am especially for thinning the ranks of teachers, lawyers, social workers, used car salesmen, media talking heads and preachers.

[J.T]

Liberals see the "rich" as a renewable money source and ignore how much in taxes they are paying currently

Wait.... what?

You say that, then you quote an article saying

The top 400 U.S. individual taxpayers got 1.59% of the nation’s household income in 2007 — 3X the p% they got in the 1990s.


and


Average tax rate of the 400 = 16.6% — the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 in 1992
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/267149/MARGINAL-TAX-RATES.jpg

[fj1200]

http://cpusa.org/save-the-nation-tax-corporations-tax-the-rich


I was with you JT until you hit that 70% Tax on 1 million or more. :puke:

That was a ridiculous list of populist lefty blather. Absolutely nothing of worth there.


Wait.... what?

You say that, then you quote an article saying

and

That was also a pointless graph. It gives the impression that revenues are determined by rates.

BTW, corporate taxes should be ELIMINATED.

[fj1200]

So you think Dems are the only ones who don't pay their taxes. If so, I think one shell too many has gone off outside your pumpkin head.

Pretty sure that's not what he said.


My answer is always this -- If one economic class earns more significantly more than the next, who should pay more taxes? Republicans have always opposed higher taxes for the wealthy because that is where the majority of their campaign contributions come from.

One economic class DOES pay more and the vast majority at that. And that's not why I oppose higher taxes for the wealthy... unless my campaign contribution checks have just been lost in the mail. ;)


Stupid people tend to forget that this country runs on tax dollars. You can't decide you want fewer taxes and more services. It doesn't work that way.

Stupid people tend to think that government is the reason why our country is great. They also tend to demand more "services" despite the inherent inefficiencies of what government provides.


Interesting that many of the same people who want to slash social security, medicare and workers pensions similarly don't want to cut the same benefits to veterans and company big shots.
If we are slashing across the board, let's cut the defense budget by 40 percent. Starting with all the dead weight in the Pentagon.

"Company big shots"? Did you just throw that in for effect or do you have a specific benefit in mind?

[Gunny]

So you think Dems are the only ones who don't pay their taxes. If so, I think one shell too many has gone off outside your pumpkin head.

My answer is always this -- If one economic class earns more significantly more than the next, who should pay more taxes? Republicans have always opposed higher taxes for the wealthy because that is where the majority of their campaign contributions come from.

Stupid people tend to forget that this country runs on tax dollars. You can't decide you want fewer taxes and more services. It doesn't work that way.

Interesting that many of the same people who want to slash social security, medicare and workers pensions similarly don't want to cut the same benefits to veterans and company big shots.
If we are slashing across the board, let's cut the defense budget by 40 percent. Starting with all the dead weight in the Pentagon.

Assume much? I don't see ANYWHERE I have EVER said Dems are the only ones that don't pay taxes. Y'all are just bigger hypocrites about it.

Get off your defense budget rant. It's lame. You want to cut out spending for the very thing that allows you to express your screwy, leftist ideology.

YOU and people like YOU didn't make this nation. You just suck off the blood, sweat and tears of those that have.

[Gunny]

Pretty sure that's not what he said.



One economic class DOES pay more and the vast majority at that. And that's not why I oppose higher taxes for the wealthy... unless my campaign contribution checks have just been lost in the mail. ;)



Stupid people tend to think that government is the reason why our country is great. They also tend to demand more "services" despite the inherent inefficiencies of what government provides.



"Company big shots"? Did you just throw that in for effect or do you have a specific benefit in mind?

Best I can figure, she's as hypocritical on this topic as any other. It's okay to have a union pension, or a pension from any other socialist program, but Hell, let's cut the bennies on those that EARNED theirs.

"company big shots" is Gabby's way of saying it's okay for the government to redistribute wealth from those who earn to those who don't.