Democrats' Plan Would Benefit Middle Class, Target Rich

originally posted by: BomSquad
Immediately taxing CG at 95% would remove all incentive to investment. The risk/reward balance would be so out of whack that masses of people (and institutions) would try to get their money out of their investments as fast as possible, the stock market would plummet, credit would dry up, entrepreneurs would be unable to bring their ideas to market, jobs would be lost and we'd end up with a depression worse than the 30's.

The stock market and credit drying up aren't bad things. When you make commodities affordable by removing incentive to horde and instead merely keep your money in a hold, like a savings account, you create an opportunity for everyone to use the resources they might without having to fight over imaginary scarcity created by private ownership.

I'm not saying we can't raise taxes, but you also need to do it in such a way that wouldn't crash the economy.
...
The more you buy, the more you pay in taxes. If you choose to save your money instead of spend it, no taxes.

That's not working all that well for us now.

a reply to: TheArrow

I'm not talking about consumer credit drying up, I'm talking about financial credit drying up. Without financial credit, companies can't expand, and entrepreneurs can't bring their ideas to market. If companies don't expand, new jobs aren't created. If new jobs aren't created, more people end up not only unable to pay taxes, but siphoning off money from the tax base in the form of public assistance. In other words our economy would slow to a halt much like it did in 2008 when the credit dried up.

I see you deliberately misread my post, so I'll say it again:

I'm all for a national tax on all monetary (financial) transactions except for essentials, namely food, clothing, housing and education. Tax everything else and remove ALL other taxes (Income, capital gains, inheritance, etc.). No more tax exempt status for ANY organization (a little disclosure, I currently work for a non-profit).

The more you buy, the more you pay in taxes. If you choose to save your money instead of spend it, no taxes. I don't believe the tax rate would even have to be that high, if every transaction was taxed a small percentage, it would add up VERY quickly.

You see, those two paragraphs go together. If you take the second one out of context, it loses it's meaning.

We should stop taxing production and start taxing consumption. Tax EVERY monetary (financial) transaction. Keep the tax low so as not to discourage the transaction, but tax a larger number of transactions. Every time money changes hands, it should get taxed. This would also have the added benefit of GREATLY simplifying the tax code.

originally posted by: BomSquad
a reply to: TheArrow

I'm not talking about consumer credit drying up, I'm talking about financial credit drying up. Without financial credit, companies can't expand, and entrepreneurs can't bring their ideas to market. If companies don't expand, new jobs aren't created. If new jobs aren't created, more people end up not only unable to pay taxes, but siphoning off money from the tax base in the form of public assistance. In other words our economy would slow to a halt much like it did in 2008 when the credit dried up.

No.

It would simply mean that private bank controlled financial credit would disappear, and publicly owned financial credit would emerge. The bailout worked for the banks, it worked for GM. The government is already in the business of loaning money. It could be more beneficial if it were the only player in the game.

I see you deliberately misread my post, so I'll say it again:

I'm all for a national tax on all monetary (financial) transactions except for essentials, namely food, clothing, housing and education. Tax everything else and remove ALL other taxes (Income, capital gains, inheritance, etc.). No more tax exempt status for ANY organization (a little disclosure, I currently work for a non-profit).

The more you buy, the more you pay in taxes. If you choose to save your money instead of spend it, no taxes. I don't believe the tax rate would even have to be that high, if every transaction was taxed a small percentage, it would add up VERY quickly.

You see, those two paragraphs go together. If you take the second one out of context, it loses it's meaning.

We should stop taxing production and start taxing consumption. Tax EVERY monetary (financial) transaction. Keep the tax low so as not to discourage the transaction, but tax a larger number of transactions. Every time money changes hands, it should get taxed. This would also have the added benefit of GREATLY simplifying the tax code.

I didn't misread it. I simply snipped the parts I didn't feel like commenting on, however, since you want to push the issue, taxing consumption hurts those with less money, but like I said, I'd be on board with a flat tax. I'd even support a sales tax on every transaction. However, that would be on top of a very steep capital gains tax. I'd roll back my initial 95% to 90% 10,000 dollars on every 100,000 made isn't chump change, and that other 90,000 could do a lot of good in the public sector.

This is not a tax anyone in the middle class should be in favor of if they saved money all their life for retirement and the government wants to take a portion of it every time they buy or sell a stock. Who wants to just fork over hundreds of extra dollars per year in taxes to the government? I think the democrats would suggest taxing the air we breath might help us too if they thought there was any chance of it happening. Actually this could be in the works. I believe the EPA has declared carbon dioxide to be a harmful substance and we are putting out this dangerous substance every day. One solution might be to kill all of us. Some have suggested reducing the population. It would be nice if the voters were more careful by not voting for any politician who claims they want to help us but raise taxes in the process.

I think a financial transaction tax would be a great way to depress economic activity and put businesses out of work and crash the stock market and increase the crime rate. Actually to get there faster, our government could just confiscate all of our wages and not bother with nitpicking how much they take every time we buy or sell something. I believe this plan to tax us to death is a terrible idea. my two cents. We don't need to add taxes, we need to get rid of politicians who spend too much and cut spending, not raise taxes so that they can spend more.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I have to know.

When it comes time for you to be taxed, how much do you think you should lose of what you make? Just give me a percentage.

Whatever it takes to have a functional society. Amount of taxes taken mean very little in terms of hit to quality of life, some of the highest taxed nations have the best quality of life while the lowest taxed nations have the worst. If that means 95% taxes are what are required then so be it, but I don't think it would be that much. Laffer curves suggest it's somewhere in the mid 70's and Reagan himself king of the tax cuts felt it was to to the right of 35%.

a reply to: orionthehunter

While that may be true, I would be curious about how many people the government in those nations employ and how unionized their workforce is.

There is too much corruption and waste in US government for this kind of plan to work in the US. If we can't get rid of waste and corruption in the US government, how is feeding more money into that system going to benefit the common citizens?

a reply to: TheArrow

$10000 on every $100000 might not be chump change, but the risk of losing a significant portion of your investment during the period is greater than the potential return on a lot of investments. You seem to be assuming that everyone that invests is investing in a "sure thing", that is not the case. There are many cases of speculation investing, high risk, high reward type of investments, usually on new ideas/products.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting Democrats have never learned, that targeting the rich never works. What few "rich" people there are can not overcome our overly taxed system. Sure the middle class pays more, because there are more middle class than any other class of people. People that live at or below the poverty line do not even pay taxes. So the middle class have to handle the bulk of taxation in America. It is obvious to me, I live below the poverty line and all it takes is a little common sense to see this taxation situation.

the markets are rigged!! all you have playing is a bunch of peons with their IRAs and such and a small few with enough $$ and power to take out any stock they desire or build any one they desire up!! They contract out commodities they don't even own so often that if all those contracts suddenly demanded delivery there isn't enough gold to cover them!! What if some other country like oh I don't know China decided to start buying up all of these contracts and just collects them? and well once they have enough they could just demand delivery and crash the whole dang western banking system!!
For us common people well our main investments were our HOMES!!! Ya remember those?? And those big players with their slicing and dicing and packaging and selling and reselling along with the MERS system that shredded the notes and destroyed the records have put the ownership of most of the homes on the market in question!!! Again what if some country decides to start collecting them or the companies that think they own those notes and then demands payment in full?

Yous are defending a fraudulent system that has sucked an enourmous amount of money out of our economy along with causing our printing presses to go into overdrive in an attempt to clean up their mess. The banks can get the money for next to nothing while you watch your fees go up when you try to put your money into their banks! They have just about made our money so worthless we have to pay someone to take it off our hands!!! And since they are getting this grand windfall of newly printed money for next to nothing from the fed, are they loaning any out to the businesses so they can keep running??? No, why would they do that when they can add it to their market portfolio with their superfast computers that can make so many transactions in an hour that they can raise or drop the dow a few hundred points in less time than it took you to make a cup of coffee and make money on the way down as well as the way up?

Gee maybe if they were taxed some on their profits they would have some incentive to lend a little of it to your boss so you can hold onto your job another year!!!

originally posted by: TheArrow
Increase Capital Gains tax to 95%

Everyone wins.

No one wins. IF you do that no one will want ot invest an anything. Why build a new factory if you get nothing from it.

What you thing all these rich people take their money home and put in under the bed?

I have know a couple of millionaires. Both invested most of their money back into the business.

Their are more millionaires out then then most people know. They live normal lives and recycle the money back into world. The 1% that has hugh wealth will not be effected by any tax plan anyway.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

This is but another thinly veiled attempt to exploit the middle class for political advantage. The republicans nor the democrats have any real interest in helping those of us in the middle. From all outward appearances, this looks like nothing more than an attempt by the dems to rally support due to the losses encountered from the last couple election cycles. Had they won the last election, would a proposal such as this even be on the table?

Frankly, I can't take anything any politician says as being even the slightest bit truthful. I always end up asking myself, "what's in it for them?" as this is the only real outcome that matters.

When I was younger, I had but one mantra: I want to know the truth. And that applied to all things: religion, politics, etc. Do I have all the answers now? No. But, what I've come to learn to date has made me very cynical. I just don't believe anyone in power really wants to help others. I truly believe that anyone at a state or federal level is only interested in self-preservation and getting as much for themselves as they can. Their "constituents" be damned.

I'm tired of the relentless pandering to specific demographics, cohorts and special interests all in the name of so-called votes. Image Image Image. That's what it's all about. If you're in Iowa, then you'd better have a flannel or checked shirt sans tie. If you're in Detroit, then your sleeves better be rolled up to show you're a hard working son of a gun. If you're in the South, then you'd better put on your best fake Southern accent to show solidarity to the struggles of the poor in that region.

SICK SICK SICK. I'm so sick of this nonsense and dribble. If all our politicians disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't feel one iota of loss for them. But, even that wouldn't improve things. We've established a culture in this country where it's o.k. to say one thing to a lot of people but then do something completely different. After all, the average American voter is stupid (Gruber). They forget if it isn't drilled into their heads by the state controlled media.

I hear people talk all the time about revolution.....right. You think it's coming? Most of America is weak...very weak and the second their precious stuff is threatened, then turn tail and hide. You want change, then let me see you do something about it. Voting these bastards in and out of office isn't going to do a darn thing anymore.

It's time to go back to the drawing board.

a reply to: Freenrgy2

It's time to go back to the drawing board.

Absolutely the problems in the federal government are systemic. A massive Restructuring is necessary as a first step, but of course, is easier said than done. For example, Senators should be limited in how long they can actually serve. They become too complacent and secure in their jobs, which can go on for decades. For many, once elected, their positions are held life long. Isn't Erin Hatch, in his seventh six-year term?

My state only has two Senators, but they've been in since I can remember. They went in as seemingly "good ole boys", but are now very savvy, money-making machines. One of them, from my city, owns a huge amount of real estate here, (now) mostly apartment complexes, where only the wealthy can afford to live. (I am old enough to remember that he was elected as a member of one party, then switched to the other soon after going to Washington. Another thing that pisses me off).

The other one is so rich and distant, I think he might "stop by" the state once in a while.

"Complacency is the hob-goblin of little minds." (to be clear, here I refer to the voters).

I read some posters here and other threads speak of being tax free. What does that mean? What civilization in the past or the present does that? With no central government and taxes there is no civilization. Just another middle east type of disjointed tribes. I don't want my family to live under such a system.

a reply to: MOMof3

I think you've answered your own question. The U.S. is very complex and we've developed a very costly lifestyle and society. Without taxes it would essentially cease to exist.

Oh hey, look!
The mere mention of this topic has caused even internet warriors such as yourselves (no disrespect intended) to divide and squabble.

Can we now see the true meaning of this proposal?

Side A - propose off-the-wall system
Side B - oppose system with vitriol and posturing

Side A - re-proposes not so crazy system
Side B - opposes new system as "STILL NOT ENOUGH!!"

Side A - proposes something not even remotely resembling the original 2 systems and has the complete opposite of what was originally intended.
Side B - agrees to work on it.

Mission Accomplished
Or
how 2-party politics work together by working against each other so that THEIR interests win and WE lose

a reply to: MOMof3

These are a few countries that have no "income tax", of course they have other methods of generating revenue.

Monaco
Kuwait
Bermuda
UAE
British Virgin Islands
Qutar
Bahamas
Oman
Cayman Islands

originally posted by: ketsuko
I have to know.

When it comes time for you to be taxed, how much do you think you should lose of what you make? Just give me a percentage.

Why would someone who creates no wealth take my work and create theirs as their own? -33% aka pay us back for our work so far be that the government the clergy the speculators etc

a reply to: Emeraldous

...Corporations
Big Banks
Wallstreet

If you want to list the thieves, don't dance around it. Name them.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Thanks. I don't know much about those countries but will do some research. Like, would I want my family, especially the girls to live there.

I would like to apologize for hurting everything whether knowingly and unknowingly to me and everything. I am a child
ladyinwaiting I