Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich

[Bonestorm]

First, thanks for the link and direction to the correct page. I appreciate that.

Second, LMAO.... so, historically revenue has been between 14.8-20.6% of GDP with an average of 18%. Yet, their 'baseline' scenario has revenue increasing beyond 20% around 2020 and continuing to increase through 2080, never going below the HIGH end of the last 40 years range? Even their 'alternative scenario' located on the same page uses an average rate of 19%.... which is still above the long term average, but at least that is close to it.

Bottom line, that 'baseline' scenario is only achieved if you MAKE the changes we are talking about. If you note, on page 46 it states that the only way that scenario is viable is if their are revenue increases much larger than the average (tax increases the most likely way to achieve this) or substantial cuts in spending (or a combo of the two).

So no, the 'do nothing' as you claimed is a LIE. YOU LIAR!!!

Actually, if you look to Tale 1-1 on page 3 you can see the assumptions for the baseline scenario. It's just a projection based on current law.

Hilarious.

 

[Rationalist]

Hey Kenneth,

Please explain how GE broke the law on their taxes.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Great Idea!

Raise Taxes on the Rich.

Then they can raise the price of things that I buy.

This,,,,,,,, "Raise Taxes on the Rich" has gotten old.

What you really mean to say is, "make poor people pay more, & be more poor".

Make gas go up for the poor, because those bad old oil companies aren't taxed enough,,,,,, "by making the price of gas go up".

Man,,,, the poor have to really love higher food prices, and other things they get to choose from.

All because the rich are getting away with not paying their fair share. (of taxes)

WOW!!!

Great idea,,,, Try to make sense of making the cost of living go up.

For the poor.

And the less wealthy (every pay check) middle class.

What's getting old is the convoluted clap trap mantras spewed by corporatists toadies.......Ever since Reaganomics was instituted, taxes for the wealthy have gotten less and less via loopholes, tax breaks, etc. AND WHILE THE RICH PAY LESS IN TAXES, WHILE THEY OUTSOURCE JOBS, HIDE THEIR WEALTH IN OFF SHORE ACCOUNTS, ETC., PRICES ON THE GOODS AND COMMODITIES THEY "CREATE" HAVE GONE UP FOR YOU AND ME.

The willfully ignorant neocon parrots and corporate toadies all happily swallow the Kool-Aid of the grand threat....If we pay taxes, we'll raise your prices.

Newsflash folks....THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THAT. To paraphrase Bill Maher of recent, "Dude, they've already got your money"!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I love it when people who are not rich defend tax cuts for the rich because they fear the rich will take their toys and leave. Thing is, when you look at outsourcing, downsizing, tax breaks....they already have left, in a fashion.

If you return the taxes to Clinton era, the rich will still be rich and more revenue will be added to the country's coffers.

and outsourcing is done why?

For the Sweatshop labor, you Super Freak-ing corporate ass kisser! Get your head out of Crowley's ass and get up to speed SF, will ya please?
Probably nothing to do with the high corporate tax rates (which get passed on to consumers).

Our Super Freak-ing Dunce just keeps repeating the SOS ad nauseum. If businesses could just pass tax increases along to the consumer via higher prices, they would not wait for a tax increase to do so. Prices are determined by availability and demand on the market. Demand is not dependent on tax, if that were the case, corporations and companies would have changed their operations a LONG time ago.

Got that bunky?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, if you look to Tale 1-1 on page 3 you can see the assumptions for the baseline scenario. It's just a projection based on current law.

Hilarious.

LMAO.... did you actually think I wouldn't read the table? Or a better question.... did YOU actually read the table?

It states clearly:

Under this scenario, the expiration of most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher average tax rates. Those rising rates, combined with the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, would push total revenues to 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and to larger percentages thereafter. At the same time, government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II.

It says it right in the friggin summary... so your 'current law' table is reflecting the elimination of most of the Bush tax cuts AND a reduction in spending by Congress.


Do try reading your links, they might actually help to educate you. You were shown where your chart was wrong... yet you keep digging trying to find something else in there that supports you. Bottom line, we have to do something.... so you lied. Isn't that the standard of 'LIAR' you just held ID to?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Our Super Freak-ing Dunce just keeps repeating the SOS ad nauseum. If businesses could just pass tax increases along to the consumer via higher prices, they would not wait for a tax increase to do so. Prices are determined by availability and demand on the market. Demand is not dependent on tax, if that were the case, corporations and companies would have changed their operations a LONG time ago.

Got that bunky?

your ignorance on economics is already well founded. No need for you to continue proving it time and again.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO.... did you actually think I wouldn't read the table? Or a better question.... did YOU actually read the table?

It states clearly:



It says it right in the friggin summary... so your 'current law' table is reflecting the elimination of most of the Bush tax cuts AND a reduction in spending by Congress.

Exactly. That's current law and what happens under the "do nothing" scenario.

Do try reading your links, they might actually help to educate you. You were shown where your chart was wrong... yet you keep digging trying to find something else in there that supports you. Bottom line, we have to do something.... so you lied. Isn't that the standard of 'LIAR' you just held ID to?

You lost me here. This makes no sense.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Why do you presume this to be fair? I could see it if people were just born automatically controlling wealth, or if they were granted wealth based on who they are... but that is seldom the case in the real world. Most people who control wealth, earned that wealth. NOTHING should be done on the basis of what "group" controls the wealth! That's not fair, that's a Marxist punishment for people who have been successful!

And let's get your figures straight... The top 20% pays about 95% of the taxes now... so you are actually suggesting we cut taxes for the wealthy considerably, or at least, shifting the bulk of the tax burden away from the top 20%. I'm fine with that, but I doubt that was the point your Marxist ass was intending to make.

That's a rather simple minded statement. We enjoy a vast number of services from the government, roads, education, hospitals, defence, etc, etc. You can't be a bum. You have an obligation as a citizen who enjoys the benefits of these services to help pay for those services. That is hardly a punishment.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The top 1% pay 33% of the federal income tax revenues, and the upper half pays 90%. I don't see the point in whining that the wealthy don't pay a fair share.

Who's whining? If the Top 1% pay 33% of federal income but control 40% of the wealth, then the tax system is to their advantage (btw, I'd have to ask you to site those numbers.) and you could make a valid argument that they are under taxed. If the top 1% pays 33% on federal income taxes but controls only 20% of the wealth then you can make a good argument that they are over taxed.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Exactly. That's current law and what happens under the "do nothing" scenario.

Really? Do show us where those spending cuts are under current law.

 

[Bonestorm]

Really? Do show us where those spending cuts are under current law.

What spending cuts?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's a rather simple minded statement. We enjoy a vast number of services from the government, roads, education, hospitals, defence, etc, etc. You can't be a bum. You have an obligation as a citizen who enjoys the benefits of these services to help pay for those services. That is hardly a punishment.

If all we had to pay for was roads, education, hospitals, and defense, I'd probably be fine with it, it's the other 99,999 government programs, agencies, bureaucracies, redundancies, and outright hand-outs, that I am opposed to. So let's start cutting out this shit that isn't outlined in Article 1 Section 8, and I bet we can reduce the tax burden substantially.

As for being a bum, I take exception... I have the right to be a bum and not help pay for a damn thing... MILLIONS of Americans pay no tax at all, and in fact, get a tax refund check for taxes they never paid! I am fine with a system where you don't have to pay taxes if you didn't earn an income, but we're paying people out of the tax revenues, who never contributed a dime.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Our Super Freak-ing Dunce just keeps repeating the SOS ad nauseum. If businesses could just pass tax increases along to the consumer via higher prices, they would not wait for a tax increase to do so. Prices are determined by availability and demand on the market. Demand is not dependent on tax, if that were the case, corporations and companies would have changed their operations a LONG time ago.

Got that bunky?

your ignorance on economics is already well founded. No need for you to continue proving it time and again.

Translation: Our Super Freak-ing Dunce can't deal with the simple logic of the situation, so he tries to bluff, and Super Freak-ing FAILS!

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...t-Raise-Taxes-on-the-Rich&p=798103#post798103

Tax breaks and the like have been on the uptake in the 30 years for the wealthy and corporations...yet prices have gone up for the average consumer. Major layoffs, bailouts, outsourcing....yet some corporations are reporting record profits while Joe Schmoe is getting layed off and can't pay his ever increasing bills.

Simple fact that lays waste to the oft repeated pro-corporate justificaitons by the likes of your Super Freak-ing toadies.

 

[signalmankenneth]

This Sh*t has to End!

 

[Liberty]

What's getting old is the convoluted clap trap mantras spewed by corporatists toadies.......Ever since Reaganomics was instituted, taxes for the wealthy have gotten less and less via loopholes, tax breaks, etc. AND WHILE THE RICH PAY LESS IN TAXES, WHILE THEY OUTSOURCE JOBS, HIDE THEIR WEALTH IN OFF SHORE ACCOUNTS, ETC., PRICES ON THE GOODS AND COMMODITIES THEY "CREATE" HAVE GONE UP FOR YOU AND ME.

The willfully ignorant neocon parrots and corporate toadies all happily swallow the Kool-Aid of the grand threat....If we pay taxes, we'll raise your prices.

Newsflash folks....THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THAT. To paraphrase Bill Maher of recent, "Dude, they've already got your money"!

We've already gone over this dude.

In the end, Opportunity brings Prosperity. Just because large billion dollar companies have bought off the dems, and reps to create literal monopolies excluding people like me and you, making life harder for us, and many other Americans, doesn't mean raising taxes on the rish is going to do anything but make things worse.

When you say raise taxes on the rich, that rich turns out to be me, you and many tax payers who have no more to give. Not to mention the higher prices that will result because of it.

I got an idea, break up GE, IBM, MSFT, major banks, etc. Make them compete, and relax regulations, and restrictions on small companies, which are there at the request of billion dollar companies.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What's getting old is the convoluted clap trap mantras spewed by corporatists toadies.......Ever since Reaganomics was instituted, taxes for the wealthy have gotten less and less via loopholes, tax breaks, etc. AND WHILE THE RICH PAY LESS IN TAXES, WHILE THEY OUTSOURCE JOBS, HIDE THEIR WEALTH IN OFF SHORE ACCOUNTS, ETC., PRICES ON THE GOODS AND COMMODITIES THEY "CREATE" HAVE GONE UP FOR YOU AND ME.

The willfully ignorant neocon parrots and corporate toadies all happily swallow the Kool-Aid of the grand threat....If we pay taxes, we'll raise your prices.

Newsflash folks....THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THAT. To paraphrase Bill Maher of recent, "Dude, they've already got your money"!

We've already gone over this dude.

In the end, Opportunity brings Prosperity. Just because large billion dollar companies have bought off the dems, and reps to create literal monopolies excluding people like me and you, making life harder for us, and many other Americans, doesn't mean raising taxes on the rish is going to do anything but make things worse.

When you say raise taxes on the rich, that rich turns out to be me, you and many tax payers who have no more to give. Not to mention the higher prices that will result because of it.

I got an idea, break up GE, IBM, MSFT, major banks, etc. Make them compete, and relax regulations, and restrictions on small companies, which are there at the request of billion dollar companies.

Dude, you're essentially repeating the same myth that higher taxes on corporations will automatically result in higher prices. Check out Posts #64 and 73. Once you accept these basic truths and realities, you'll realize that the basis for your assertions above fails.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dude, you're essentially repeating the same myth that higher taxes on corporations will automatically result in higher prices.

That is what happens, doofus! Do you think the CEO takes the tax increase out of his bonus check or something?

If you raise the tax on a corporation, whatever service or product they produce, automatically increases in price to accommodate the increase. That's just how it works, and anyone who has ever ran a business or corporation, knows and understands that is how it works. You can run around here spewing your ridiculous propaganda all you like, but that doesn't change reality.

Now, how many businesses have you owned? How many CEO positions have you held? My guess is; NONE and NONE! 'nuff said!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Translation: Our Super Freak-ing Dunce can't deal with the simple logic of the situation, so he tries to bluff, and Super Freak-ing FAILS!

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...t-Raise-Taxes-on-the-Rich&p=798103#post798103

Tax breaks and the like have been on the uptake in the 30 years for the wealthy and corporations...yet prices have gone up for the average consumer. Major layoffs, bailouts, outsourcing....yet some corporations are reporting record profits while Joe Schmoe is getting layed off and can't pay his ever increasing bills.

Simple fact that lays waste to the oft repeated pro-corporate justificaitons by the likes of your Super Freak-ing toadies.

1) Thanks again for proving what a moron you are when it comes to economics.

2) The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world

3) You are correct, prices have gone up, in part because the corporate income tax is passed on to consumers in higher prices. Tell us genius, if you think the tax isn't passed on.... WHO do you think is currently paying it? The shareholders? The employees?

4) Of course outsourcing is going to occur if you make it undesirable to do business here. Just look at what is happening WITHIN the US. The same scenario is playing out. Corporations will go to states that are business friendly over those that are not. you idiots scream 'they do it because of slave wages'.... because that makes you feel special. But again, those 'slave wages' are actually 'middle income' wages in most of the developing markets. How do you think India and China (among others) have begun developing a middle class? Learn the what the phrase 'cost of living' means. It might help you to comprehend what is happening.

5) you idiots on the far left love to scream and shout about the evil 'corporations'. Again, corporations are but pieces of paper. It is the OWNERS of the corporations that should be taxed on earnings... don't you agree? They are the ones making the profits. Should they not be the ones to pay the taxes on ALL of the corps earnings? You pretend that the corporation is not passing on the corp income tax to consumers (likely because your masters told you so). Tell me.... would you not prefer a tax system that GUARANTEES the taxes are paid by the OWNERS?

6) I have shown time and again a tax system that is actually PROGRESSIVE. Unlike our current regressive system, it would tax the appropriate people. There would be no way, under that system, for anyone to avoid the taxation. yet you idiots continue to ignore that system, because you would rather bitch and moan about evil 'corporations'.

7) You shout about 'record profits' because that is what your masters tell you to do. What most of you continue to fail to do time and again is actually LOOK at the numbers to make sure you are comparing apples to apples, rather than oranges. Tell us, for these companies you are bitching about.... do they also have record profit MARGINS? Have they had any M&A activity? Are their SALES also at record levels? Do you KNOW the answers to any of these? We can wait while you run to your masters for the answers if you like.....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dude, you're essentially repeating the same myth that higher taxes on corporations will automatically result in higher prices. Check out Posts #64 and 73. Once you accept these basic truths and realities, you'll realize that the basis for your assertions above fails.

ROFLMAO.... you point to two of your previous posts where you state the same moronic claim as some sort of justification that you are correct?

Tell us moron.... WHO do you think those taxes are paid by? You think the management of those firms passes the tax on to the SHAREHOLDERS or the CONSUMERS?

 

[Topspin]

we have to do it because of one upping the Jones. WE can't have super successfull people just sitting by content to pay way more than the average joe. The average Joe chose to be a loser who pays no federal tax. We can't expect hit to continue to sit on his fat ass and not plead for help from Robin Hood. Can we?