Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

What happens when a millioniare who is for higher taxes on folks like him....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What happens when a millioniare who is for higher taxes on folks like him....

    ...come up against 3 FOX neoliberal conservatives? If you pay attention to what the open borders globalists are saying, you get the ideology of the GOP in a nutshell. You will also see the incoherence involved in their tax cuts for the rich, which is governed by their own greed.

    Now some might say, that this is not the greed that creates great wealth in the first place, but instead, it isn't greed at all, but just an ideological belief, that is immune to the human nature of greed. But if you watch the faces of the men, who are railing out against this other millionaire, the truth reveals itself, in their words, their emotions, and facial expressions. You see not ideology here, although they hide behind it, but just pure greed.

    So, what is this kind of greed? Is it just people wanting to have financial security, which means physical security, the security against abject poverty and suffering from not having the sufficient resources that allows the end to economic and physical suffering? Is this the reason these cons are objecting so energetically to higher taxes on themselves? That such taxes will impoverish them? Will higher taxes keep them from thriving and even having more than most other people who work? Of course not. So, their greed is the greed found in all people who want to be rich, to have a surplus that could never be spent in several lifetimes. To have exponentially more than they would ever need, in order to have security. And they have this excess, many of them, from keeping more of the income pie produced by others, instead of those others who did the work, getting paid more, with the rich keeping less. And so of course, this greed, which creates this, is gonna be present when you speak of taking more from the rich in taxes. They do not at all like having money taken away. Even if they have more wealth than needed for security. For the very way in which they got rich, involved keeping so much of the income pie, for themselves. And if not for greed, they would not see themselves as entitled to keep as much of the income pie as they do. So, let's call this what it is, which is greed, and not try to hide behind an ideological belief that allows the greed to thrive.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=QdgQnl2tbhs





    Here is an inconvenient truth when it comes to tax rates on the elites. Given that our economic model has destroyed, and will continue to destroy the middle class tax base, which during the FDR model paid more as a percentage of taxes than the top dog, mathematically means that the tax rate on the elites will have to increase. For that is where the income disparity shows it is going. And we will have to take away those loopholes, bought by the elites. We are gonna have to tax the stew out of them, and use that money to help alleviate the economic damage these greed driven men have wrought upon working americans. So, if we are really concerned about the rich, paying less in taxes, the way to fix that is to once again have a thriving, growing middle class. But I getta feeling these cons want a free lunch here. They want the rich to pay less, even as gop policy insures the disparity in income will continue to grow, with the rich getting richer, and americans from the middle, dropping into poverty.

    Last edited by Blue Doggy; 01-25-2016, 01:19 PM.

  • #2
    Despite these reasons why claims about the 1950s and higher taxes are false, there is an even more basic reason why higher taxes did not contribute to economic growth.

    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.ph....funl687u.dpuf
    The reduction in top marginal individual income tax rates has contributed only marginally to the decline of progressivity of the federal tax system, because with various deductions and exemptions, along with favored treatment for capital gains, the average tax rate paid by those with very high income levels has changed much less over time than the top marginal rates. (emphasis added)
    http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ib_19.pdf
    Last edited by OldmanDan; 01-25-2016, 01:54 PM.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      There is absolutely nothing stopping them from cutting a check to the IRS if they are so inclined. Why do they feel the need to be forced?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Because that's now tax works and you know it.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
          Because that's not how taxes works and you know it.
          No, in this country, I'm fairly certain the IRS will gladly accept an extra check.

          Of course, people who can do that, but don't, and suggest the government take the resources of others, in the name of "charity", are just brown nosing, and that which is on their nose will be the extent of their reward.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Originally posted by Commodore View Post

            No, in this country, I'm fairly certain the IRS will gladly accept an extra check.

            Of course, people who can do that, but don't, and suggest the government take the resources of others, in the name of "charity", are just brown nosing, and that which is on their nose will be the extent of their reward.

            Again that's not how tax works.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
              Again that's not how tax works.
              Taking something from someone you don't like simply because you think they have too much of it is not how taxes work.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Commodore View Post

                Taking something from someone you don't like simply because you think they have too much of it is not how taxes work.
                He's not asking that only people he doesn't like should pay more he's saying all wealthy people including himself should pay more it's not hard to understand.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                  He's not asking that only people he doesn't like should pay more he's saying all wealthy people including himself should pay more it's not hard to understand.
                  The right wing argument, as used against this millionaire and billionaires like Buffet is hilarious. So, as that FOX talking head told the millionaire, "if you want the gov't to take more in taxes on the rich, just go ahead and write them a check". LOL. A main tactic of these right wingers is to take the issue being talked about, and then cleverly, dishonestly corrupt its meaning, and then offer up a silly solution to something they just created by corrupting a point of contention. The point was, given the debt, the deficets, given we need to revamp out infrastructure to a more modern one, the rich need to pay more in income taxes, capital gain taxes, for its at historical lows. So then the right wing goofballs, do not consider that point, and tell the guy if he wants to pay more in taxes, to write a check. It does not matter of course, that making it optional whether to pay more in taxes would be a joke, and the rich would get a good laugh out of that. LOL. Like me. LOl. So, these FOX right wingnuts are just dishonest jokers, who have to use trickery in order to get people to hang onto their right wing belliefs. These parrots for the elites are very good at fooling the Bubba's and Billy Bob's here in the south and parts of the west, with their deceitful bastardization and playing very loose with stated ideas, then corrupting them, creating straw men.



                  But then, these guys see taxation as robbery. I see it as a fee for the support of a cultured, modern civilization. And you pay based upon what this civilization contributes to the ability for some to make great wealth and fortunes. A civilization that allows people to profit in unbelievable ways isn't a free lunch, even as much as the greed driven rich might want one. To view taxation as robbery betrays a mind that is not suitable for a modern, cultured civilization.

                  The tax rates on the rich, on income above a couple million, should be above 50 percent. That would help to address the destruction of their actions upon the working middle class americans, we could call it a social destruction tax. A tax for being so greedy as to have no allegiance to any nation nor any feeling of social responsibility. A tax for being allowed to be above morality, to turn their backs on moral decency in regards to other fellow human beings.

                  The other silly right wing argument is, if you tax the rich more, they will stop making money, they will get mad and give up on making profits, even if they already have more than they could ever spend. LOL. But either the right wing folks has zero insight into greed, or they know the nature of greed, and deny it. When you are still making millions in profits, making a few less million is not gonna stop you from continue to work to make millions. LOL Like I said, these right wingnuts from FOX are JOKERS, and apparently, TOKERS. Who would have thought these guys were toking on the wacky backy? I thought they were coke heads.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                    The right wing argument, as used against this millionaire and billionaires like Buffet is hilarious. So, as that FOX talking head told the millionaire, "if you want the gov't to take more in taxes on the rich, just go ahead and write them a check". LOL. A main tactic of these right wingers is to take the issue being talked about, and then cleverly, dishonestly corrupt its meaning, and then offer up a silly solution to something they just created by corrupting a point of contention. The point was, given the debt, the deficets, given we need to revamp out infrastructure to a more modern one, the rich need to pay more in income taxes, capital gain taxes, for its at historical lows. So then the right wing goofballs, do not consider that point, and tell the guy if he wants to pay more in taxes, to write a check. It does not matter of course, that making it optional whether to pay more in taxes would be a joke, and the rich would get a good laugh out of that. LOL. Like me. LOl. So, these FOX right wingnuts are just dishonest jokers, who have to use trickery in order to get people to hang onto their right wing belliefs. These parrots for the elites are very good at fooling the Bubba's and Billy Bob's here in the south and parts of the west, with their deceitful bastardization and playing very loose with stated ideas, then corrupting them, creating straw men.



                    But then, these guys see taxation as robbery. I see it as a fee for the support of a cultured, modern civilization. And you pay based upon what this civilization contributes to the ability for some to make great wealth and fortunes. A civilization that allows people to profit in unbelievable ways isn't a free lunch, even as much as the greed driven rich might want one. To view taxation as robbery betrays a mind that is not suitable for a modern, cultured civilization.

                    The tax rates on the rich, on income above a couple million, should be above 50 percent. That would help to address the destruction of their actions upon the working middle class americans, we could call it a social destruction tax. A tax for being so greedy as to have no allegiance to any nation nor any feeling of social responsibility. A tax for being allowed to be above morality, to turn their backs on moral decency in regards to other fellow human beings.

                    The other silly right wing argument is, if you tax the rich more, they will stop making money, they will get mad and give up on making profits, even if they already have more than they could ever spend. LOL. But either the right wing folks has zero insight into greed, or they know the nature of greed, and deny it. When you are still making millions in profits, making a few less million is not gonna stop you from continue to work to make millions. LOL Like I said, these right wingnuts from FOX are JOKERS, and apparently, TOKERS. Who would have thought these guys were toking on the wacky backy? I thought they were coke heads.

                    Did you read my post # 2 in this thread? Taxes are not at historical lows.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=QdgQnl2tbhs





                      Here is an inconvenient truth when it comes to tax rates on the elites. Given that our economic model has destroyed, and will continue to destroy the middle class tax base, which during the FDR model paid more as a percentage of taxes than the top dog, mathematically means that the tax rate on the elites will have to increase. For that is where the income disparity shows it is going. And we will have to take away those loopholes, bought by the elites. We are gonna have to tax the stew out of them, and use that money to help alleviate the economic damage these greed driven men have wrought upon working americans. So, if we are really concerned about the rich, paying less in taxes, the way to fix that is to once again have a thriving, growing middle class. But I getta feeling these cons want a free lunch here. They want the rich to pay less, even as gop policy insures the disparity in income will continue to grow, with the rich getting richer, and americans from the middle, dropping into poverty.
                      Tough interview by Stuart Varney. I wonder why he never ran for the House of Lords?

                      I'll just quickly note that his percentage of income tax paid is a fraction of total taxes paid, which includes sales tax, social security tax, and medicare tax. Not to mention gasoline tax, cigarette tax, liquor tax, tolls, or student loan interest. And just try starting a family without health care.

                      But the statistic still stands, the wealthy pay most of the taxes, and they will beat us over the head with it until we look at the presidential nominee and see double.


                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                      Did you read my post # 2 in this thread? Taxes are not at historical lows.


                      Hi there.

                      Excuse me for interrupting, I felt I might have some good insight into this debate. Marginal tax rates are at historic lows. Do you think the tax deductions being taken by the wealthy are less today than they were then. Please allow me to explain:

                      First point:
                      The lower effective tax rates in the 1950's cited by your source do not take into account the effective tax rates of today, nor the fact that the super rich control far more wealth than they did in the 1950's.

                      Second point is regarding the conclusion from the second link:

                      "Corporate taxes may have played a role in pushing up the total tax burden for the rich during the 1950's, but this is not as clear-cut as is claimed. And even if high corporate tax rates did lead to high tax burdens on the rich in the past, it is unlikely that we can replicate that experience today".

                      So even this article is admitting corporate tax rates may have contributed to higher overall effective tax rates for the rich.

                      Thirdly:

                      One of the main points is that very few people actually paid these higher effective tax rates. No one is asking for very many people to pay higher effective tax rates today either, perhaps just the top 400 households?

                      And Fourth:

                      This article is written in a journal by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank with annual revenue of $13,085,748 and expenses of $14,284,045. The article is written by Arpit Gupta, a doctoral candidate. The article mainly critiques the works of Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, two highly respected economists with multiple awards, and also Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, among others.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Saez
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

                      I couldn't find a wikipedia page on Arpit Gupta.


                      Now that I have said that, let me give you my personal two cents and see if I can make a convincing argument.

                      The notion that the tax rates were lower in the 1950's also doesn't take into account that far more wealth has accumulated in the hands of the super rich since then.

                      The idea that the super rich pay more than their fair share of taxes doesn't take into account their total wealth, which has been increasing steadily since the 1950's.

                      The top 1% owns 34.6% of the wealth and pays 38.5% of INCOME TAX, but income tax only makes up 41% of all Federal tax. The top 1% pays 28.1% of all Federal tax
                      The top 5% owns 62.9% of the wealth and pays 60% of income tax, and 44.3% of all Federal tax.
                      The top 10% owns 73.1% of the wealth and pays 71.7% of income tax, and 55% of all Federal tax.


                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progre...usehold_income

                      I recognize it can be difficult to pin down exact numbers on all this, but the general story is that the top 10%, 5%, 1%, or .1%, take your pick, are getting richer and richer and are not paying more and more. I would not be in favor of raising taxes on the top 10-20%. I'm just talking about the top 10% on a tiered bases up to .1%.

                      Exact numbers can be difficult to pin down, I used wikipedia, but there are other sites that give an even worse impression on the effective tax rates paid by the super rich.

                      http://taxfoundation.org/article/sum...ncome-tax-data

                      Average tax rate for top 1% is 23.5%
                      Average tax rate for the 5-10% bracket is 12.8%.

                      Here are some others:

                      http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...gh-to-be-fair/
                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...axes-for-real/
                      http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty...ome-inequality
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income...come_tax_rates
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxati...tes#Income_tax
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...centage_of_GDP

                      I also think the jury is still out on whether taxes were higher in the 1950's or today. The narrative told by the article by Arpit Gupta was repeated by the WSJ and Bloomberg, but none of these sources took into account the effective tax rate of today, they all cite the marginal tax rate minus a few deductions maybe. They all take into account that the US was different in the 1950's, but none take into account just how much more wealthy the super rich are today compared to then. I say either let the marginal tax rate go up or close the loopholes.

                      And finally there is the fact that corporate taxes only account for 10.6% of all Federal tax receipts. The Economist, hardly a liberal source, has the following statistics:

                      The top 5% of companies listed on the stock exchange accounted for 70% (10.6 trillion) of market value and 90% (765 billion) of the total profit in 2010.
                      http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...rporate-wealth

                      Some corporations actually pay zero tax.

                      http://www.americansfortaxfairness.o...ate-tax-rates/

                      No one is saying give me 80% of your wealth. Myself, and I know some other fellow progressives are asking for a return to the marginal tax rates of the 1950's, or a closing of some tax loopholes, for an effective tax rate for the top 10% of around 40% and 60% for the top .01%. As a matter of principal, I don't think taxes should be raised on small or medium sized businesses, the lower or middle classes, or even those making any less than $300k per year. This is far from Communism, this is Democratic Socialism-lite.


                      http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sander...ic-inequality/

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post

                        Tough interview by Stuart Varney. I wonder why he never ran for the House of Lords?

                        I'll just quickly note that his percentage of income tax paid is a fraction of total taxes paid, which includes sales tax, social security tax, and medicare tax. Not to mention gasoline tax, cigarette tax, liquor tax, tolls, or student loan interest. And just try starting a family without health care.

                        But the statistic still stands, the wealthy pay most of the taxes, and they will beat us over the head with it until we look at the presidential nominee and see double.








                        Hi there.

                        Excuse me for interrupting, I felt I might have some good insight into this debate. Marginal tax rates are at historic lows. Do you think the tax deductions being taken by the wealthy are less today than they were then. Please allow me to explain:

                        First point:
                        The lower effective tax rates in the 1950's cited by your source do not take into account the effective tax rates of today, nor the fact that the super rich control far more wealth than they did in the 1950's.

                        Second point is regarding the conclusion from the second link:

                        "Corporate taxes may have played a role in pushing up the total tax burden for the rich during the 1950's, but this is not as clear-cut as is claimed. And even if high corporate tax rates did lead to high tax burdens on the rich in the past, it is unlikely that we can replicate that experience today".

                        So even this article is admitting corporate tax rates may have contributed to higher overall effective tax rates for the rich.

                        Thirdly:

                        One of the main points is that very few people actually paid these higher effective tax rates. No one is asking for very many people to pay higher effective tax rates today either, perhaps just the top 400 households?

                        And Fourth:

                        This article is written in a journal by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank with annual revenue of $13,085,748 and expenses of $14,284,045. The article is written by Arpit Gupta, a doctoral candidate. The article mainly critiques the works of Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, two highly respected economists with multiple awards, and also Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, among others.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Saez
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

                        I couldn't find a wikipedia page on Arpit Gupta.


                        Now that I have said that, let me give you my personal two cents and see if I can make a convincing argument.

                        The notion that the tax rates were lower in the 1950's also doesn't take into account that far more wealth has accumulated in the hands of the super rich since then.

                        The idea that the super rich pay more than their fair share of taxes doesn't take into account their total wealth, which has been increasing steadily since the 1950's.

                        The top 1% owns 34.6% of the wealth and pays 38.5% of INCOME TAX, but income tax only makes up 41% of all Federal tax. The top 1% pays 28.1% of all Federal tax
                        The top 5% owns 62.9% of the wealth and pays 60% of income tax, and 44.3% of all Federal tax.
                        The top 10% owns 73.1% of the wealth and pays 71.7% of income tax, and 55% of all Federal tax.


                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progre...usehold_income

                        I recognize it can be difficult to pin down exact numbers on all this, but the general story is that the top 10%, 5%, 1%, or .1%, take your pick, are getting richer and richer and are not paying more and more. I would not be in favor of raising taxes on the top 10-20%. I'm just talking about the top 10% on a tiered bases up to .1%.

                        Exact numbers can be difficult to pin down, I used wikipedia, but there are other sites that give an even worse impression on the effective tax rates paid by the super rich.

                        http://taxfoundation.org/article/sum...ncome-tax-data

                        Average tax rate for top 1% is 23.5%
                        Average tax rate for the 5-10% bracket is 12.8%.

                        Here are some others:

                        http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...gh-to-be-fair/
                        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...axes-for-real/
                        http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty...ome-inequality
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income...come_tax_rates
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxati...tes#Income_tax
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...centage_of_GDP

                        I also think the jury is still out on whether taxes were higher in the 1950's or today. The narrative told by the article by Arpit Gupta was repeated by the WSJ and Bloomberg, but none of these sources took into account the effective tax rate of today, they all cite the marginal tax rate minus a few deductions maybe. They all take into account that the US was different in the 1950's, but none take into account just how much more wealthy the super rich are today compared to then. I say either let the marginal tax rate go up or close the loopholes.

                        And finally there is the fact that corporate taxes only account for 10.6% of all Federal tax receipts. The Economist, hardly a liberal source, has the following statistics:

                        The top 5% of companies listed on the stock exchange accounted for 70% (10.6 trillion) of market value and 90% (765 billion) of the total profit in 2010.
                        http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...rporate-wealth

                        Some corporations actually pay zero tax.

                        http://www.americansfortaxfairness.o...ate-tax-rates/

                        No one is saying give me 80% of your wealth. Myself, and I know some other fellow progressives are asking for a return to the marginal tax rates of the 1950's, or a closing of some tax loopholes, for an effective tax rate for the top 10% of around 40% and 60% for the top .01%. As a matter of principal, I don't think taxes should be raised on small or medium sized businesses, the lower or middle classes, or even those making any less than $300k per year. This is far from Communism, this is Democratic Socialism-lite.


                        http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sander...ic-inequality/

                        First, "wealth" is a very misused term. It is just plain disingenuous to say that owning a bunch of stocks that can fluctuate to zero tomorrow is wealth. Liberals like to say that social security should not be invested in the stock market because it can be worth nothing tomorrow and yet they like to claim that the wealthy are wealthy because they own vast amounts of stocks. Not terribly consistent.

                        Second, we don't tax wealth, we tax income. For the wealthy, quite often, that income is simply a growth in stocks, paper wealth. Taxing those stock gains is done twice, once at the corporate level and again at the personal level, yielding quite a gain for the government for no effort whatsoever.

                        Third, what makes you believe that taxing the very rich at obscene rates will result in a wiser expenditure of those funds? The Government doesn't have a very good track record. Taking money out of the economy by giving it to a bunch of politicians to spend has never seemed too smart to me.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                          First, "wealth" is a very misused term. It is just plain disingenuous to say that owning a bunch of stocks that can fluctuate to zero tomorrow is wealth. Liberals like to say that social security should not be invested in the stock market because it can be worth nothing tomorrow and yet they like to claim that the wealthy are wealthy because they own vast amounts of stocks. Not terribly consistent.
                          Are you trying to claim that the stocks of someone like Bill Gates should be considered worthless because Microsoft may possibly go bankrupt tomorrow?
                          I'd bet someone who only has $10 million in shares feels wealthier than someone with nothing at all but you seem to be arguing they should be considered equally poor.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                            Are you trying to claim that the stocks of someone like Bill Gates should be considered worthless because Microsoft may possibly go bankrupt tomorrow?
                            I'd bet someone who only has $10 million in shares feels wealthier than someone with nothing at all but you seem to be arguing they should be considered equally poor.

                            How they feel has nothing to do with their actual situation. The left loves to argue that stocks are volatile and untrustworthy during discussions about social security but when it comes to the wealthy, stocks are the be all and end all.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                              How they feel has nothing to do with their actual situation. The left loves to argue that stocks are volatile and untrustworthy during discussions about social security but when it comes to the wealthy, stocks are the be all and end all.

                              Again I say that the rich aren't only rich because of shares they are rich because they have loads and loads of money.
                              That you can try and make this argument shows just how out of touch with reality you really are.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X