When the Progressive Income Tax Rates were high were the Rich or the Wealthy people still Rich did t

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

Your post really brings on headaches. The large type was mangled together.

I response, I fail to see where taking more of my money has anything to do with why the US is in such debt. I believe that the debt is from the Govt spending more then it can print.....er take in from taxes.
Maybe cut the spending crap, instead of promising more and stealing more.

reply to post by macman

Your post really brings on headaches. The large type was mangled together.

You responded to my post *WAY* too fast... I have to SEE the errors before I can fix them, ya know?

I response, I fail to see where taking more of my money has anything to do with why the US is in such debt. I believe that the debt is from the Govt spending more then it can print.....er take in from taxes.
Maybe cut the spending crap, instead of promising more and stealing more.

The US is in debt because we keep fighting all these wars for resource acquisition, that the *RICH* bribe our politicians to get *US* and *OUR CHILDREN* to pay for.

It's a sick little game, that costs millions of lives, and trillions of dollars.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


We agree on the fact that the US has to get out of policing the world.
My point of argument is not in this, but that the US Govt needs to stop putting it's hands in the citizens pockets, period.
And just because one makes more then another, one does not need to pay more.

The debate for which you build upon is another thread all together.

reply to post by macman

We agree on the fact that the US has to get out of policing the world.

Indeed... I don't like paying my taxes so that the military industrial complex's shareholders can profit.

My point of argument is not in this, but that the US Govt needs to stop putting it's hands in the citizens pockets, period.

You know, we didn't used to have an income tax, that was started at the same time as the Federal Reserve Bank....

Our entire government was funded by Corporate Taxes, Capital Gains Taxes.

Oh, and import Tariffs... that I believe you referred to as "Protectionism"

And just because one makes more then another, one does not need to pay more.

When the Government is Run for the Profit of the Super Rich, I respectfully disagree.

If they are going to profit off the government... then they can finance it.

The debate for which you build upon is another thread all together.

Nope... it's the same topic... taxation, and equity.

Or, the fairness of taxes.

You lost me on that one?! At 12% the $30,000 a year guy takes home $26,400 At 25% the $250,000 a year guy takes home $187,500, which isn't even close to being the same. Or was there sarcasm in your post that I didn't pick up on.

reply to post by Miraj

Here is Wikipedia's Tax rates of Europe page. Some are likely not correct any longer, but it gives us a good idea. Now tell me, how's Europe doing? 20 out of 40 countries have a top income tax rate of 40% or higher, while 8 of those are 50% or more. I can't find a link, but Alex Jones says that European serfs only paid 10% in taxes. 15 countries have a corporate tax rate of 25% or more. 24 have a VAT, which they'd love to get in the US, that is 20% or higher.

Commenters need to stop referring to the "rich", they need to call them the "uber-elite rich" or "banksters" or the "Fortune 100 cartel" or "Wall Street". The people making over $108,000 (top 10% in America) are not getting us into wars, they are not like GE making billions and not paying US taxes, they are the people who pay generous wages and benefits while attempting to compete with the "uber-elite rich" outsourced labor who benefit from 3rd world lax taxes and regulations. In Communism, the big polarity fight is supposed to be the proletariat versus the bourgeois, so it's the Workers against, no not the uber-rich elite banksters, the Middle Class production owners. Now it's been changed to Upper Class now that we have more prosperity, but at first the Marxists wanted to bring the Middle class down to the lower class, while ignoring the real controllers, what they call the bankers and capitalists (though it's really crony-collectivism and not capitalism). The Bourgeoisie are also said to own the military and prisons, even though that's the uber-elite, and that from the Bourgeois Wiki page, "Ownership of the means of production enables it to employ and exploit the work of a large mass of wage workers (the working class), who have no other means of livelihood than to sell their labour to property owners..." So the proletariat supposedly have no other means of livelihood, more like they're too lazy or scared to start their own business, so they only have the option to be "exploited" by business owners. So how did humanity survive before the evil capitalists were able to exploit them for their labor? If we don't have business owners, everything would be controlled by the State, I have a feeling that'd work as well as Soviet Russia, Communist China, or Fidel Cuba.

This whole classwarfare fallacy is screwed up from top to bottom, the Communists/Progressives have the workers set their sights on the people who hire them and, as of recently, pay them quite well. The "rich" pay you very well to sell a car or to even be their receptionist, while the "uber-elite" transnational corporations are the ones paying you nothing. So this "eat the rich" plan is all to ignore the real controllers, who just so happened to fund these same Leftist/Marxist/Fabian groups. They convince you that everything is the "rich's" fault, this then gets you to ignore the "uber-elite rich" who set up this whole corrupted paradigm. These people are never effected by taxing the "rich", they actually benefit because it runs out small business and allows them to keep their interconnected transnational cartel as a near monopoly since no one can afford the start up costs and regulation burdens.

As Mitch McConnel has stated, "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem." So all of you who think the government needs more of your hard earned money to give to lazy people with a small side of people who deserve it, then you give them extra money on Tax Day. To all those who don't think the "rich don't pay their fair share" [60%], what do you say about the huge amount of donations these people give every year. Many of these "rich" give more to charity in one donation, than many people make in their lives, is that not "paying their fair share"? So these same people start their businesses, often they don't even pay themselves until they start turning a profit or months after startup, then become successful over several years, putting in 60+ hours a week. So should they be forced to pay 80% of their money to people who choose not to work (there are plenty of jobs regardless of our blackhole economy), or 95%, how much is enough? If you took all of the "rich's" wealth, you wouldn't even get a trillion dollars, we are now going to be adding over a trillion dollars every year to our deficit. So should we take 150% of their wealth? Will that cover your Cowboy Poetry Festival? Will that cover our 14 trillion dollar debt? No, it will certainly not. Would heavily cutting taxes help the economy and all classes of people? Most certainly. Would it hurt "social benefits"? Breifly. Will it overtime bring in far more revenue for these "social benefits" which will have less people dependent on them? Most certainly.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I am arguing for the individual, not the corporation.
You are on point, but again over the head of the topic, so to speak.
Or, you are arguing a point that is 10 miles ahead of the topic.

reply to post by macman


Most people do not want to be failures, most people want to
Succeed. I am not sure who you are observing or where you live,
But the people I know strive for better. I am not sure if you
Are swinging at unemployment or Medicare recipients, but
I think you need to move to more furtile grounds. Further more,
I am a failure, I am a pathetic failure thus far, that does not mean
I give up or want a hand out, I just want to get it right.

I respect people based upon their humanity, if people are weak I still
Respect their humanity. It is hard for me to except that many people
Have little regard for that bound, you would rather focus upon performance,
I think performance tales a back seat to fraternity. There was never
A heroic tale based upon a strong man slaughtering weaklings for a reason...
The sad tale of owners and slaves, there is no room to examine the more
Fundamental question... With this, we race headlong into the mission of endless junk,
Endless divisions, revamps and improvements. They no longer make quality
Goods that last, because quality can threaten longevity. Endless taxes are a mirror of
Your endless expectations, perform, pay, pay to perform. I think your base
Position begs for endless taxes, enjoying life is a sin, you can't enjoy life
Because the mystical hand of scorn frowns upon existence in comfort. This is it
Huh??? This is it, make yourself look busy

reply to post by macman

I am arguing for the individual, not the corporation.

Well, I thought I would add another perspective to the discussion... for posterity, of course.

You are on point, but again over the head of the topic, so to speak.
Or, you are arguing a point that is 10 miles ahead of the topic.

Hey, I like to anticipate trends, and head them off at the pass!



We really have to talk about corporate profit's though.... because most of the wealthy people don't make all of their money from direct compensation... they make it in capital gains... on the stock market.

So a discussion regarding "Income Tax" that does not include capital gains, is an incomplete argument.

Because Capital gains is LEGALLY defined as Income.... therefore, it is on point.

And since Corporate gains, are translated to increased share price, then it is technically income tax for the shareholders.

reply to post by Janky Red


Your are poetic in your philosophical debate, I give you that.
I have been taken off course and off idea.
My main driving point is that no one person should be taxed more then anyone else, in regards to income.
It is BS, any way you look at it.
It punishes people who are successful in creating wealth.
If one pays, all should pay, the same percentage.

reply to post by macman


Let us just speculate that five men in America, incorporate
Amass several trillion a peice, buy and retain all policies...
If you do the math you will see that such a thing
Is mathematically plausible - Is such a situation the expression of
Freedom?


Edit

While you frown upon unequal treatment

I think massive disparity also creates unequal treatment

Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by macman

 

Let us just speculate that five men in America, incorporate
Amass several trillion a peice, buy and retain all policies...
If you do the math you will see that such a thing
Is mathematically plausible - Is such a situation the expression of
Freedom?


Edit

While you frown upon unequal treatment

I think massive disparity also creates unequal treatment

edit on 1-7-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

Again, you have the philosophical debate down.
What you march behind is a "common good" mentality.
I want the individual to succeed or fail on their own merit.
I am not beholden to the Bush Family, Oil Barons and so on, as they can't directly reach into my check and take out the money they want. The Govt can and does. By any other means is theft.

Hi eazyrider,

I work for a multinational global corporation that made 15 billion dollars in net income. They've reduced their U.S. work force in the last 6 years by about 50,000+ and hired the equivalent number in China and India and more in other countries. These aren't unskilled or semi skilled workers. These are scientists and engineers. This company is increasing profit every year, not by charging less just by laying off good people who dedicated their lives to this company (probably a mistake). This company makes money in government contracts and providing goods and services to other American companies that ultimately get their profit from the American people. So it isn't as simple as "let them move". They have moved, but continue to profit from the U.S. Is it wrong to enact laws that say if the companies profit from the U.S., they must employ in the U.S? That is the problem with a purely free market in a global economy. It will decimate the people who helped create the global corporations. I for one believe that is wrong. Yes, we can wait as our currency and real estate gets devalued until it becomes more profitable to hire in the U.S. In the meantime, what about the people who no longer have employment and can not get hired in a down economy? People who lose their homes and their retirement money? While the CEOs of these corporations are getting huge bonuses, for what? They did nothing but destroy lives of good people for profit. There is no skill in this. There is no great knowledge they needed. We continue to reward the extremely wealthy and suck wealth from the middle class.

We have been slowly descending into a 2nd world status, but that descent is accelerating. My point is that there are a lot of these "ditto heads", living at home with mommy and daddy, that love to spout off about how the problem is with the poor stupid lazy people who are too stupid and lazy to find jobs. I beg to differ, I know of a lot of highly skilled and intelligent people that have had their lives ruined by the sheer greed of companies like this. I bought in to the American dream, I went to school became an engineer and now consistently work 12 hour days and weekends just so I don't get on the next layoff list. The greed of corporations and the people who run them knows no bounds. Even if it means the destruction of the American economy, the American family and particularly the destruction of the middle class. Yet, they are rewarded. These people do not add value to our society, they only destroy it.

Originally posted by eazyriderl_l
We can keep sending our jobs over seas.

Really.
How do we ship our jobs overseas?
What kind of packaging does it require?
If we ship in bulk can we get a better shipping rate?

The jobs don't leave, the corporations leave. And let them leave. I am under the belief we don't need them. We should start learning how to take care of it in our community then a single corp. wont amass a their own spy network. findarticles.com...