How many would like to see the Wealthy TAXED to extinction?

[Kansas Wyatt]

Come on now, while the rest of us have been getting poorer over the last thirty years, the Wealthy Elite have hi-jacked our government and replaced it with a Corporate Government to benefit only them, at our expense.

Who here supports an immediate correction to the growing income gap divide, by taxing the rich to extinction, so they can take their place in society among the rest of us and can no longer live off the backs of others?

What would be an appropriate tax for the wealthy, considering they are the ones who benefited by driving up the national debt and who owned the politicians driving up the debt?

To anyone wealthy reading this, I do not give a shit about how hard you struggled to get where you are... All of us are not presented with the 'sacrifice and work hard, and you'll get your reward' opportunity, and all of us do not fit in the cookie cutter mold that you followed. Most of us work hard, get nowhere, and often still fall behind as well. The upper class had it's chance to make things right for those less fortunate, and blew it.

[UndertheOcean]

1. How about starting by prohibiting inheritance .

So that the field is even at birth , and no one lives of a trust fund while his/her peers are slaving away.

[KittyWampus]

80. I've been working at my family's business for 45 years. Grandparents started it, my father then me.

The property was bought 50 years ago in a resort area. It's now worth substantial amounts of money.

But you think I should be prohibited from inheriting the place?

I've given up a lot of my life to this place, but shouldn't inherit it?

[JDPriestly]

92. You should have been buying the business over the years.

There are various ways to plan for succession in a family business. For example, part of a child's pay for working for a family business should may be that the child buys an ever increasing portion of the shares in the business. The child's parents could loan the money to the child to buy the business as as the child worked for the company over the years. Then, at the end, when the child's parents retire, the child pays back the money the parents loaned and thereby funds the parents' retirement. With proper estate planning, the child does not have to "inherit the place." The child earns and buys his or her ownership in the family business. Proper estate planning protects not only the child working in the family business but also the other children.

Families who own a business should consult a lawyer early on about protecting the family's assets, taxes and estate planning.

If you have put a lot into the business, you are not a trust fund bum. Trust fund bums do exist.

[KittyWampus]

116. I should have been BUYING THE BUSINESS? With what fucking money? You've obviously never owned

a small family business.

We make enough to pay bills.

Any profit is spent at the end of the year so we don't have to pay taxes.

And my father shelled out a LOT of money for an estate lawyer this year. HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.

[Selatius]

128. How much is your parents' estate worth?

Over 2,000,000? Under the current federal law, every dollar underneath that mark is untaxed by the federal government. I can't speak about state laws as far as estate taxes go.

[KittyWampus]

132. Real Estate value is about twice what you posted, because we're in a resort area.

and many family farms out here have same issue.

[Selatius]

137. I think the current rate is like 47% on every dollar above that. So...

4,000,000 - 2,000,000 = 2,000,000 x .47 = 940,000.

In other words, when your parents pass on, you must pay 940,000 on the 4,000,000 estate with the first 2 million exempt if you inherit the estate. If you have sufficient monthly cash flow from this business, you could possibly avoid liquidating a portion of your assets by diverting some of the monthly cash flow into a monthly payment schedule of the tax, but that requires some amount of fiscal planning ahead of time. Usually, most folks I've heard about who had estates large enough to be hit with the estate tax simply liquidated a portion of their estate to be done with it in one blow.

[KittyWampus]

142. We have no significant cash flow. We pay the bills and get a roof over our head.

And we spend any profit at year's end to avoid paying taxes on it.

And the only way we could "liquidate" is split off the back acre and sell it. After which our property taxes would be reassessed at an obscene, unaffordable rate.

So, now do you understand why the law needs changing?

And for family farms out here... do YOU think it's a good thing for even MORE farm land to go under to housing for wealthy? You think it's family farms should liquidate?

[Selatius]

168. I'm hard pressed to find an example of a family farm ruined by the estate tax.

Usually, rural real estate tends to be a fraction the value per acre that an acre in, say, an urban area like Manhattan Island would fetch. Farms large enough in assets to be hit with the estate tax are usually corporate-owned, and corporations are theoretically immortal; they don't die.

I dunno about your situation; it sounds difficult. The only thing that comes to my mind, given your apparent limited income level and the extreme real estate value in your area, maybe it's time to move out. The land you're on is becoming gentrified from what I can see (poor people being forced out due to the presence of wealthy interests/families driving up prices for everyone else).

I guess the other avenue is to form a corporation and award ownership of your business to this artificial entity. Of course, you control the entity, but since the shares are owned by the corporation, and the corporation can't die; there is no estate tax. You just have to deal with regular corporate income taxes. Whatever net income this corporation generates at the end of the year can be reinvested back into the corporation so that it isn't taxed.

[JDPriestly]

171. As you point out, there are solutions here.

The person who started this part of the thread needs to get smarter not madder. The anger is misplaced. It is not the government that is at fault here. Many people who have much greater wealth than this person handle their wealth very well.

[Occulus]

178. Family farm? Estate tax?

PLEASE tell me that poster didn't bring up Republican talking points.

I have it on ignore, apparently for very fucking good reason!

[JDPriestly]

170. You need to talk to a business manager/tax consultant.

Your cash flow may not be very great, but the value of your assets is. You need to manage that.

[krispos42]

158. Your parents should have life insurance...

equal to the amount you will have to pay in the inheritence tax. Life insurance, IIRC, is not taxed as income.

So if they kick the bucket, what you owe on the large amount of money that will be being passed on to you will be paid for by a nice fat check from Mutual of Omaha.

Problem solved. But the DuPonts and Waltons don't want that easy-out method in the public eye, and the conservative talkers are more than happy to oblige them.

It probably wouldn't work for an incredibely large inheritence, like Bill Gates' $56 billion, but for your purposes...

[Ignis]

89. Or even bringing the estate tax back down to a reasonable level?

How many millions does a baby need in a democratic society?

:shrug:

[Raine]

164. What would be the incentive

then for anyone doing anything. Most people work hard and strive to make things better for their children, which seems only natural. If you can't leave them anything than more people would probably just not do anything and have the government support them.

[flashl]

2. My interest is not taking wealth. My interest is in a collective economy

where it is not a vested interest of another that I must be dirt poor to have a desire to work in a field that I enjoy.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Same Tax Rate As We Had When Eisenhower Was President, And...

Republicans controlled both houses of Congress 91% top tax bracket for the super rich, about 50% of total income going to taxes for most of the wealthy, capital gains taxed at the same rate as earned income.

http://blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal

[FogerRox]

44. Exactly, Thomas Jeffferson wrote about the balance brought by Progressive taxation.

According to the US Treasury,
"the entry of the United States into World War I greatly increased the need for revenue and Congress responded by passing the 1916 Revenue Act. The 1916 Act raised the lowest tax rate from 1 percent to 2 percent and raised the top rate to 15 percent. Another revenue act was passed in 1918, which hiked tax rates once again, this time raising the bottom rate to 6 percent and the top rate to 77 percent."
After WW1 tax rates dropped during the "Roaring Twenties" as income disparity increased until the Stock Market crash of 1929, the start of the Depression. Under the guidance of Franklin D. Roosevelt, tax progressivity returned, and the top tax rates went up, programs like Social Security and Unemployment relief got started, the CCC & the WPA put people back to work creating infrastructure thats still in use to this day.
My Parents got thru the Depression with a progressive income tax, we won WW2 with a progressive income tax. The 12 million men & woman that served in the military in WW2 came home, the GI Bill sent vets to college, and they started families. This created the largest, most vigorous and the best educated middle class, in the history of the planet. Labor unions were at the zenith of their power, our eductaional institutions were the envy of the world, corporations made money, the wealthiest made money. The American Dream was born.

Enter Ronald Reagan and the start of full spectrum warfare on the middle class. The opening salvo, the PATCO strike. Busting the Air Traffic Controllers union was the start of a multi front military style operation to drive wages down for all americans. Then we were told that Social Security was going broke, this represents the opening of a second front of the War on the Middle Class that resulted in the doubling of payroll taxes.

See a pattern ?

[pinto]

4. Not me. I'd like to simply see all citizens taxed fairly.

[Kansas Wyatt]

13. I'm sure the Bush and Cheney families agree with you.

The Bush Dynasty was built and has fed off the U.S. tax coffers to get where they are today. I'm sure they would love the idea of them being taxed at the same rate as a janitor, teacher, police officer, etc. etc., even though they got most of their wealth from the American taxpayer.

And the same goes for the birth and suckling of the DeadEye Dick family dynasty.

Oh, never mind the Wealthy Elite, who benefit off of and get richer by lucrative government contracts.

I'm talking about immediately correcting a problem that has been dragging this country into a two class country over the last thirty years.

[patrice]

19. I think it has been longer than thirty years

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

[Kansas Wyatt]

23. And did the income gap divide grow more in the last thirty years,

Especially when tax cuts for the rich became a popular flavor for our alleged government?

[patrice]

27. It did.

But I am concerned about repeating their mistake: oppression. In the long run, it will just create a whole other set of problems, just as bad or worse.

We must concentrate on using our resources to Free everyone.

[Breeze54]

26. They actually pay less in taxes than a janitor, teacher, police officer, etc.

Percentage wise; the janitors, teachers, police officers, etc.

of the USA pay MORE taxes than the the rich.

I don't want to wipe out the rich, I just want fair taxation for all.

[JDPriestly]

94. Do you think that capital gains should be taxed at the same

rate as earned income, in other words should income from investments be taxed at the same rate as money earned from work and from interest?

[annabanana]

113. When did capital gains cease to be considered "income" for taxation purposes?

Were they EVER taxed at the same rate?... And why shouldn't they be taxed at a HIGHER rate, since they don't require any actual, you know... work?

[krispos42]

163. Bush Tax Cuts, of course

Capital gains are taxed at 15%.

In other words, all the interest paid by the US Treasury on the $9 trillion US Debt is taxed at 15%.

To put it another way, the rich vote for Republicans, who bond-and-spend like kids in a candy store. The rich then loan the government the money it needs (instead of the government just taking it from the via taxes), and the rich get it back with respectable interest every single year. And the respectable interest is only taxed at 15%.

The money they save on taxes, and the money they make on loaning the government the money instead, they use to... elect more Republicans! Directly and indirectly!

The tax cuts for the wealthy go to keeping the Republicans in power. It also guts social programs (gee, we can't afford them now...), so liberal donations go to helping people hurt by the funding cuts rather than getting Democrats in office. Which means... more Republicans are elected!

Isn't it a beautiful system?

Oh, and "tort reform"? Really, by capping damages in civil suits it would cut into the livlihood of trial lawyers, who are generally Democrats and give heavily to the progressive cause. No successful trial lawyers, no money for the Democratic candidates and more corporate money for the Republicans.

Isn't it even more beautiful now?

You must read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff!

[Marrah_G]

183. Absolutely

It is insane that they are not.

[panader0]

5. Hey, I'm a hardworking poor gu with three teenagers

and I would like to have the taxes raised to an appropriate level for the rich, but to extinction, no. Some people earn more, and I said earn, not deserve. But to reward the rich with tax breaks while the shrinking middle class and the poor foot the bill is ridiculous.

[guruoo]

88. And the 'cheap labor' crowd goes....

'Working three jobs and still not making enough
to support your kids? Gee, you must be pretty lazy.'

:rofl:

[madrchsod]

6. not me

the rich do have a very important roll in society. what we have now is to many of the rich feel no obligation to the society they live in.

[Kansas Wyatt]

7. That is why I proposed a "correction" to the problem.

I never said that it had to be permanent. Only a correction to what has occurred in the last thirty years.

[pnwmom]

58. You proposed "extinction," which sounds permanent to me. n/t

[Greyhound]

71. Would you please define that "very important roll in society"?

I can't think of a single thing that we need the rich for.

[Dorian Gray]

110. Well, there's always that elusive

Poppy Seed Roll. I hear that they're important for a delicious ham sandwich.

[Gregorian]

8. I doubt eliminating wealth would eliminate poverty.

Wealth in and of itself is not bad. It's what people do to gain wealth, and what people do with wealth that can be bad.

Why focus on wealth when we should focus on poverty. Wealth can be a tool. In the right hands.

There never will be an even playing field. Not in finances, and not in the physical world. Why was I a healthy boy growing up. Other children were not so lucky.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. I think it would. Think of it, what the wealthy have, the poor don't.

And the wealthy have far more than the poor would need to be middle class.

[jody]

10. IMO society advances on the shoulders of brilliant, creative scientists and engineers.

As I see it, the question is how much do we tax those brilliant, creative scientists and engineers before we stifle them?

Behind the scenes are a handful of wealthy families that control the world's finances and they have gamed the system so their fortunes are already protected in other countries. They don't pay taxes except in a condescending way.

I really don't care how much we tax entertainers, athletes, wealthy ner-do-wells, and others of their ilk because they produce little of lasting social value.

[Greyhound]

72. The brilliant and creative of any profession do what they do because it is what they are compelled

to do, money is not their motivation.

The great entertainers, athletes, lawyers, artists, mathematicians, physicians, scientists, you name it, will do what they do because they love it. It is the hacks and club members that go into something for the money, do a half-assed job, and ruin it for everybody.

[cascadiance]

81. I've been a software engineer for well over 20 years now...

And according to Obama's reply to Hillary Clinton the other night on her comments on social security caps, I fit into the top 6% of salaries in the U.S. (though it doesn't go very far here in California).

However, I feel that we should revisit the top marginal tax rates back before the Reagan tax cut. We might increase the salary where they kick in, but I think that's the only real way to correct the great divide that is growing now.

Perhaps if the high marginal rates are very high, we can say that it is temporary, and that some of the added "marginal tax rate percentage is designated as a "war tax", which would be only taxed on the rich. Arguably one could claim that this group of people has gained the most in terms of benefitting from this war, in terms of tax cuts that have unprecedentedly been given to them during it before, and also due to the war profiteer profits mostly going to the wealthy investors as well.

By having some of this added tax a "war tax", that would put new incentives in place for them to use their financial clout to help STOP this war to help them keep more of their earnings.

[FogerRox]

86. Well

My Parents got thru the Depression with a progressive income tax, we won WW2 with a progressive income tax. The 12 million men & woman that served in the military in WW2 came home, the GI Bill sent vets to college, and they started families. This created the largest, most vigorous and the best educated middle class, in the history of the planet. Labor unions were at the zenith of their power, our eductaional institutions were the envy of the world, corporations made money, the wealthiest made money. The American Dream was born.



http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2006/11/tax-rates-middle-class.html

[originalpckelly]

11. OK, we've followed your plan. Now a group of only 535 people control 1/3 the wealth in America...

instead of 3 million odd people.

The problem here is that you think we can democratize this system, by taking money from an oligarchy of 3 million people and transferring it to an oligarchy of only 535 people. 535 will have complete control over how that money is spent, because even though there are 2 million in the executive branch, the legislative branch passes the budget. Even if we count the executive branch, every single employee, that's still a smaller group of people controlling so much wealth than right now.

How is that any better? Isn't it even worse than the current situation?

[originalpckelly]

24. Are you going to respond?

Huh? What about what I said punk? :P

Just kidding, but it would be nice if you'd consider what I said.

[Kansas Wyatt]

28. Your plan presuming that our elected representatives did NOT actually represent us?

Hmm... Less money to corrupt politicians. Well, perhaps they would start representing us once again.

[originalpckelly]

33. You just assume out of nowhere that people who run for Congress aren't corrupt.

They're all corrupt because they're all human.

There's no way of getting around the innate corruptibility of people. Our whole system is based upon the idea that we assume people are corrupt. If they aren't, then no harm is done except a little extra paperwork. If they are, we're protected from corruption.

Power cannot be centralized in the hands of 535 people without it being used for even more corrupt purposes than in the hands of 3 million. The idea is to democratize capital by increasing the amount of wealth held by the middle class, not hand capital to a smaller group of people. The more people who work for themselves and have little debt, the more wealth is democratized. We ought to pursue policies along those lines.

[Robbien]

12. I am not in favor of torture

and for rich elite, saying the tax man cometh would indeed be deemed tortuous right down to their greedy small nuggets of so called souls.

[michaz]

14. This sounds like whining!

[Kansas Wyatt]

21. Hmm.... Kind of like, 'Tax me more because I'm wealthy is wrong'

'Boo hoo, so what if I made all my wealth from the American tax coffers.'

[michaz]

30. Grow up! Some people actually worked their butts off to get where they are now

and actually deserve it. Some actually do some good with it too.

[treestar]

95. Some people work their butts off and aren't wealthy

And even struggle.

Sorry, but most of the wealthy have had a leg up. They have advantages. Therefore, they don't "deserve" it. They are no better than the rest of us. Just luckier.

[michaz]

112. Some do! But not all. That is how it is, there is always going to be...

people of wealth. Always has been. Whining is not going to change that. Yes, they should pay more in taxes, that goes without even saying. But to go to the extent of taxing them out of existence just isn't even sensible!

[patrice]

15. Taxes should be enough to maintain the basic economic agreement between each individual and

his/her group. This agreement manifests the understanding that: in exchange for my ________ behavior (abiding by the group's values, rules, and expactations), I will receive _____________. Taxes should be enough to fill in the second blank with: complete and appropriate education K-16, valid and reliable health care, adequate defense, and those forms of infrastructure and regulation necessary to maintain our relationships as a nation.

[ShaneGR]

16. What a ridiculous concept and a poor choice of words....

You act as if the "wealthy" are some sort of gigantic conspiracy ri destroy the middle class and make everyone poor. Newsflash, without the middle class, the wealthy can't survive.

And taxing them to "extinction?" Why don't we just round them up in concentration camps then, I mean after all, they must be jewish to be so wealthy.


Completely idiotic post.

Fair taxation makes more sense, with a much lower scale for the poor and lower to middle classes.

[Kansas Wyatt]

18. So super tax cuts for the rich is a very good thing in your book.

And the 1950s was a bad time for the middle class.

Your idiotic post is duly noted.

[ShaneGR]

54. Did you even read my post, can you read?

I see you can write, because clearly I said lower tax rates for the poor and middle class was a way to combat to the problem. Even increasing rates on the rich, within reason, would be fine to me. But taxing to "extinction?" Whatever man, that's just moronic.

[pnwmom]

61. That's not what the poster said.

The poster called for a much higher tax on the wealthy relative to those less well off.

"Fair taxation makes more sense, with a much lower scale for the poor and lower to middle classes."

[terisan]

36. Quisling! They need to be taxed to the end of their undue political influence. nt

They are destroying our country and constitution.

[harmonicon]

39. I find this acceptance of notions of "class" to be disturbing

[Warren Stupidity]

67. That is because you have been completely brainwashed.

Turn the tv off. There is a class war. It is open season on us peasants. We, those of us working for a living, have been losing ground since the '70s. Meanwhile the oligrachs, the elites, that vanishingly small group of fabulously wealthy people who now run this planet virtually unchallenged, have been increasing their share of the planet's wealth at every turn. We live in a corrupt kleptocracy, a republic of the corporation by the corporation and for the corporation.

[harmonicon]

73. that was my point

It amazes me that people are writing things here about how there are "poor" people and "middle class", like these things are ok. I find these things to be abhorrent. We should do away with classes, and doing away with the brainwashing that makes people accept that having different classes is acceptable is step one. It is not ok for even one person to go without when we have the resources for them not to! If that means no SUV, summer cottage or giant TV, I could give a damn.

[leftist_not_liberal]

122. yes please

[Raksha]

91. You're obviously a newbie. You don't come to DU

and act like "class" is a dirty word. We discuss class issues and CLASS WARFARE quite openly here, considering that many of us have been losing the class war for quite some time...and we're sick of it!

[annabanana]

114. It SHOULD be disturbing. The vast majority of Americans have been

on the losing end of the Class War that has been waged over the course of the last 50 years.

[leftist_not_liberal]

121. There is no such thing as a "middle class"

but it does maker for good talking points by the petty bourgeoisie...

[Marr]

152. Without the middle class, the wealthy will prosper even more.

I don't know how you figure that the middle class is beneficial to the wealthy. They aren't. A middle class is not as compliant as the poor. They actually demand things that don't make money for the wealthy-- things like days off, benefits, medical care, etc. They have the time and resources to become politically active.

Take a look at south america and tell me the wealthy need a middle class to survive. Their influence increases as the middle class shrinks.

[BadgerLaw2010]

17. My inner Social Darwin wants to retaliate against your class warfare.

Perhaps if you actually worked hard in school and lived within your means without a debt pyramid you would have a decent income and not feel such a need to growl.

See, I can stereotype too.

"WHAAAAAAA! NO ONE WITH MORE MONEY THAN ME DESERVES IT! WHAAAAAAA! TAKE THEIR MONEY, IT ALL GETS HANDED TO THEM! WHAAAAAAAAH!"

[Kansas Wyatt]

20. Thanks for reading the entire post. NOT!

[harmonicon]

37. get a clue

I was making less money in actual dollar terms than I was ten years earlier at the job I had the summer after highschool. After highschool, I went to college. I worked for a year after that making a little more money than I had the 4 years earlier. Then I got a master's degree. Well, during that whole time, the economy had been taking a nose-dive. I couldn't get a job in California where I'd earned my master's degree that would pay enough for rent and gas to get to and from work. I moved back to Michigan (where I grew up, to live with my parents) - with a master's degree - the best I could do was a minimum wage job as a clerk. You think I didn't work? You think those degrees came for free or they were easy to get? B.S. I've worked my butt of my entire life, and for what? The US has been taken to the cleaners by the wealthy. If you can't see it, you've either been damn lucky to keep your job(s) and/or you aren't looking 20 feet out your front door.

[wtmusic]

22. How many cast in a "cookie cutter" mold get wealthy?

If someone is wealthy as the result of an inheritance, that's different. But people who get wealthy as the result of their own initiative are creative, hard-working people. Maybe they work harder than you or I do, or have more of a talent for making money, or were just plain lucky. I say more power to them.

Whining gets you nothing.

[Kansas Wyatt]

25. Whining Republicans got tax cuts for the wealthy.

Perhaps that is why the Democratic Party hasn't been effective in representing the working people of this country, like it once did, lately.

[JDPriestly]

100. Some creative, hard-working people become wealthy.

Some stay poor. Creativity and hard work today often do not mean as much as, for example, social skills, knowing the right people or in other words, maintaining sober habits, being kind, having good relationships with family and friends. It is important to be happy with what you have. George W. Bush is an example of a person who really never worked that hard, never particularly succeeded at anything, was never that creative, and did not lead a really disciplined, sober life, but who has gotten where he is because he was born into a wealthy, powerful family and knows all the right people.

Personally, I do not want to live in a wealthy society in which there is extreme poverty, and that is the situation we have today. The poverty around us is getting worse as we speak. The kind of poverty that there is here in L.A. cannot be alleviated by good people being kind and giving donations.

I used to do grant writing and fundraising for a pretty large homeless project. Private charitable grants and donations and fundraising are helpful but not very cost efficient in funding homeless projects. People love to give to help animals, the environment, children or for health issues. But most people do not find it quite so rewarding to give to help out of work mentally ill or substance abusing grown men. There are a couple of religious homeless charities that rely to a great extent on private money, but, although they put on a huge show especially this time of year, they don't begin to deal with the massive amount of homelessness in our city. Also, they spend a lot to get a relatively small amount of private money. In the area of helping homeless people, the only realistic solution is public funding, and the only way you can generate public funds -- that is large amounts in grants for charitable projects for homeless people is to tax people.

If you want something, you have to get it from where it is. You can't get coffee from a peanut. You can't get orange juice from a date. Wealthy people have money, so when the government needs money, it has to tax the wealthy.

Society works well when people share their talents, skills and gifts. If you need scientific invention, you have get it from a person who has the gift of being a scientist. If you want leadership, you have to get it from someone with a talent for leadership. Wealthy people have money. That is their gift, so they have to share their gift, their money, just like the teacher who has a gift for explaining things has to share that gift with those who need to learn. That's the way the world works. If you have ideas, you share your ideas. If you have money, you share your money. It is a blessing to be able to share. It is a wonderful feeling to share, whether what you are sharing is your intelligence, your musical or artistic talent or your wealth.

Wealthy people usually owe their wealth to many people around them and to the talents of many people who share their talents for relatively little compensation. Think about Bill Gates. He had great talent. But he did not develop his talent all by himself. He owes a lot to the teachers who taught him, the police officers who protected his family from crime and fear, the firemen who protected his community from fires, the scientists who developed vaccines that protected him from childhood illnesses and many other people who earned relatively little for their contributions to his life. Now he is wealthy. Of course he needs to give back. And based on what I have read about him, he gives back with joy.

Sorry for the disorganized rant, but wealthy people sometimes seem to forget about all the relatively poor and even poorer people who contributed to their wealth. Being able to handle and deal with money is a talent just like being able to compose music. Wealthy people will not live well unless they are generous with their talent and their wealth. That is because the very rich are neither free nor safe in societies with huge disparities between rich and poor.

[Doremus]

125. Your mention of Bill Gates

I was reading up on inheritance tax recently, specifically the neocons' campaign to eliminate it.

Bill Gates is against it.

There might be hope for him yet.


The founding fathers knew unhindered inheritance and perpetual corporate charters create feudalism. Smart guys.

[JDPriestly]

172. One of the interesting things about early America is that

we got rid of primogeniture, "the common law right of the first born son to inherit the entire estate, to the exclusion of younger siblings." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture

This was and is considered a big step in democratizing the ownership of land. http://books.google.com/books?id=tW_Cy4uvqTgC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=primogeniture+american+revolution&source=web&ots=du4RUzu5uL&sig=jawK3462JKPpOuM35Dlc5mwMXeU

Abolishing primogeniture meant that estates would be divided among the various children in a family, thus breaking up the very large estates. Younger children were treated more fairly in the U.S. when it came to inheritance than they were in Europe.

[Snarkoleptic]

29. I'd rather see the table not so heavily titled in favor of the rich.

As wealth and power continue to consolidate, getting ahead is increasingly difficult for those who are not connected.
As it stands, the game is rigged and those who hold wealth and power will continue to do so.
IMHO, a strong public education system is essential to making opportunity available to all who have a strong work ethic.
The * cabal benefits from an uneducated, compliant, working class which lacks critical thinking skills.
For this reason, they'll continually push the 'guns side' of the guns and butter equation.

[Gregorian]

31. I think this strikes directly at the heart of the matter.

This is a positive step. Not to take from, but to add to. Rather than remove all possibility of a dream, give a greater chance for obtaining that dream.

I also think there is some truth to the original post in the sense that the difference in wages between some owners and their workers is completely unreal.

There will always be people who create things, and create jobs. And to expect them to make the same wages as those whose jobs they created is absurd. It's like expecting current to flow where there is no potential voltage.

[HughMoran]

147. This is the crux of the argument...

I agree - the goal of the right-wing is to keep the working class down. Uneducated "good soldiers" fit right into the Straussian (neocon) equation. The "dumbing-down" of the discussion in this country is no accident. Thanks media for paying attention :eyes:

[Ravy]

32. I just want them taxed to "Oh! So *this* is what it's like!!!!" NT

[BearSquirrel2]

34. Hard days work for a good days pay ...

I think the mantra should be a hard days work for a good days pay. If an employer isn't paying their employees right, they should be taxed. So I think we should tax employment rates under $15 per hour on a linear scale.

[brazos121200]

35. In a capitalist society such as ours there will always be rich and

poor. All of the social welfare programs in the last 70 have done little good in eliminating poverty. Yes, we have a safety net which will help many people on the lower rungs of society from falling completely off, but never will poverty be completely eliminated. As long as the mega corporations have control of our government we will get only what they allow us to have. If the people would take control of the country as was intended by the founding fathers the big corporations would take what we let THEM have. If the super rich feel taxes have gotten too high they will just turn on the pressure by layoffs, downsizing, price increases and the such. They have all the power as it now stands and they are not likely to relinquish power anytime soon.

[harmonicon]

41. it doesn't have to be this way

Nothing in the constitution makes the US a capitalist country. We ought to do away with it - capitalism, that is. Capitalism has it's roots in medieval feudalism, and is really no better. The amount of suffering brought into this world by it should be clear to everyone, but it's seen as being something that we cannot change.... given as natural fact, like the ocean has tides. I say we should chuck it.

[brazos121200]

49. Not possible as long as the corporations control

the mainstream media. The vast majority of people believe whatever they are told, and they are told this is the way it has to be, so they believe it. There may be some changes in the future, however. the average American is now around $10,000 in debt not counting their mortgage, and in time this could bring problems when the time comes that this debt has to be paid off and the people don't have enough money to do so.

[ShaneGR]

55. So basically become a communist nation?

Strip all of the wealth out, let everyone work 30 hours a week with 8 weeks vacation, and everything will be great! I have a place for you, it's called 1980 USSR. You should move there.

[harmonicon]

74. I think I'd be better off if I could,

(as would loads of people) but the TARDIS is only a fictional thing on Doctor Who. I'm no communist, but I don't like capitalism one bit. It is founded on exploitation. We as human beings are capable of such great things, but have tried to little in terms of social/economic structure. The world population now is such that I think we have to come up with something new. I don't think we should have a 30 hour work week, unless someone can accomplish what they'd like within that time. What I do know for certain is that there's little point in fantasizing about an ideal world of the future without doing what we can to do away with the things we dislike about the world of the present.

[ShaneGR]

82. Honestly, as a liberal democrat, I'm gonna tell you to spend less time on your computer

Stop wasting your time spouting off about communist principles, start at least trying to better yourself. There are so many ways to do so, hard work being the first, education being the second. If you're so helpless that you feel the need to openly advocate stripping the wealthy in this country of their money that they worked for, perhaps you should take a long, cold, hard, look at yourself and what you've done.

[Common Sense Party]

104. Freeper! Neo-con stooge!

How can you be so heartless?

:sarcasm:

[readmoreoften]

174. Yeah, education and hard work are really paying off in Tanzania and Iraq and New Orleans.

"There are so many ways to do so, hard work being the first, education being the second." You do realize that you just said that poor people are lazy and ignorant.


Maybe you should take a "cold, hard look at yourself" and realize that you don't work any harder than a single mom or dad working 3 jobs and that "education" costs a boatload and the market is flooded with college grads. The wealthy kids who didn't have to work and had the opportunity to do internships and network get all the jobs. The kids who have to work 40 hours a week while they attend school make no contacts and come out with little more than debt. I'm a college professor and I see it every damn day: lazy, wealthy party kids getting top jobs because they have the right plastic surgery; poor, hardworking kids who are going to leave school with massive debt and underemployment.

What an arrogant post.

[originalpckelly]

62. Capitalism is really not anything more than the concept of private capital.

There can be fair and unfair systems of capitalism.

Fascism is a method capitalism, I'd say our system is more like a fascist system than a free market system. Big corporations shouldn't really exist in a free market, they're like little planned economies. Wal-Mart is a great example of this, they spend tons on logistics. In a free market with small stores, logistics is a task placed on store owners themselves instead of a special division. Less people are devoted to the single task of planning logistics. More people are free to do actually productive tasks instead of managing production. I'd suggest that the fascist nature of our economy is one of the reasons it's been so bubbly recently.

Free markets self regulate, supply/production is in line with demand, instead of someone having to sit off and figure out how many pencils need to be made, the price of pencils fluctuates with the supply/demand ratio. If demand is greater than supply, then the price of pencils goes up and more business folks enter the pencil making business because they are motivated to make a profit off of the high price of pencils. If too many folks enter the pencil making business, then the price of pencils plummets. Business plans of various pencil manufacturers are tested, and only the best most efficient plans survive. Eventually supply falls and this whole cycle is repeated again.

It's a continuous feedback loop of supply/demand. When something interferes with it, it gets all whacked out.

For instance, if a government sets price controls on pencils, then the whole system of self-regulation ends. Now a government bureaucracy needs to be set up, sapping possible productivity from the economy, because people who'd usually be out doing real work, must sit around and regulate work being done by other people. Someone must do research and find out how many pencils will be needed. They must set the price of the pencils just right so that the people who really need pencils will get them. Research must continuously be done if supply is to be kept in line with demand.

If planning is not updated frequently enough, then as conditions change, and things don't work out as planned, the plan is less and less efficient. Too many or few pencils will be made as demand fluctuates.

I hope you get this, this is why free market capitalism is better. Also, from a freedom standpoint, not having someone tell you how many pencils you get is a big deal. It presumes that someone else knows what you need more than you do. You may have no clue sometimes, like we all do, but how is someone who doesn't even know you going to do any better? How does some flunky off in bureaucrat heaven know how many pencils you need more than you do? That's the general idea of it, and living in a society that allows people to know what's best for themselves in the economy is a part of letting people know what's best for themselves in government.

[harmonicon]

75. I know that that's how it's supposed to work in theory

In practice I don't know of it ever actually working that way. Consider all of the manipulation that is put on both sides all for the purpose of profit. Enron? I remember being in California when they had these rolling blackouts.... come to find out they were holding off and gouging customers. Price fixing has been done by loads of corporations for loads of products. Now the biggest factor we have is the media creating a false sense of need, which creates demand. There has been a serious confusion between goods and commodities.

I do think you're right about our economy being more like that of a fascist country than a truly free market. I'm fine with supply and demand and even fluctuating prices, but I'm not fine with people making a profit off of these things. I know it sounds crazy to most people, but I just don't think it's ok. If instead of having corporations run for profit, we had nonprofit entities (where employees still draw salaries) running things, there would be, I imagine, much greater emphasis put on making excellent products and no focus on putting out whatever will generate the most wealth. Oh well... I'll be called a dirty pinko or a dreamer, but I don't mind.

[creeksneakers2]

96. Walmart is more efficient than small stores

Wherever Walmart goes, small stores go under. No fascists are closing the small stores. They simply can't deliver as much for a buck as Walmart can, because they are less efficient.

[Selatius]

130. Pretty efficient when they're making suppliers use Chinese labor to the tune of 60 cents/hour.

No mom or pop business could compete with that kind of cost cutting.

[originalpckelly]

135. You are right, I mean, right on the money!

And we also forget that the Bush tax cuts have artificially pumped money into the economy by running up national/public debt. We forget the low fed funds rate allows people to spend less on interest for housing loans (eventually that rate trickles down) and more on consumer items, when in reality they ought to be paying more interest. There's a whole list of things that happen that allow Wal-Mart to exist and most of them have to do with elements of planning in the economy, albeit fascist elements of planning.

[originalpckelly]

134. Wal-Mart in a sense is more efficient, but only because of practical slavery.

Slavery cannot be apart of a true free market system, as the other poster pointed out above. They also use anti-competitive tactics, and they exist in a nation that is fascist and friendly in business policy to them. (Though, of course some small communities may oppose them, they are usually in good with the people in most of government.)

[JDPriestly]

105. Actually, the best economic system incorporates elements

of free market capitalism and elements of regulation. I have a free market in oxalis in my back yard. I wish you could see it. For quite a number of years, I was just working from dawn to dark most days and not able to look after quite an area of my back yard. Oxalis is an extremely invasive plant in the west where I live. Oxalis does not just compete for space, it takes over huge areas. It does not let other plants live in peace. It is extremely greedy. It is not the only extremely greedy plant that thrives in nature. If you just let markets go their own way without the slightest oversight, as with oxalis, there will be rampant cheating. Counterfeit products of poor quality will crowd out products of good quality. That has already happened. Excellent companies that have produced reliable products for years have been bought out. Their machines have been transported overseas. And the products are not nearly the quality that they were when the products were made in the U.S. Products made with slave labor will always be cheaper. But it is doubtful that they will be better, and the slaves will not be able to buy the products they make. Ultimately the greed of those who outsourced the work and produced the second rate products will harm our society to the point that no one wants "free market capitalism" in its extreme form.

I don't want government telling the shoe manufacturer what color of shoe to produce or me what color of shoe I can buy, but I do want government prohibiting the local factory from pouring poisonous substances into my drinking water. If I'm going to put my life savings in a bank, I want the government to regulate the auditing practices of the bank. I can't audit the bank for myself. So I want the government to step in on my behalf and set some standards that insure that I can trust the bank to be honest and trustworthy.

I want the government to provide educational opportunities for all children. I don't want to live in a society in which only the children of the rich get an education. My parents went to one-room country schools. But they became very well educated, creative, contributing individuals because of public education. I want the government to make sure that everyone can have basic health care. I don't want my neighbors to get tuberculosis and not have the healthcare to take care of it.

We are all healthier thanks to government regulation of medicines, drinking water, the air and food. As a matter of fact, the relatively recent trend of importation of the ingredients for medications from the unregulated Chinese economy is just a huge tragedy waiting to happen. Those who oppose all government regulation of the economy will be the first to scream when someone they love dies of a contaminated medication or drinking water. If recent events in the toy industry are any indication, we will have such a problem sooner or later. So a mixed economy is the best. And if you don't want to take my word for it, look at the statistics on world economies. The Scandinavian countries have very strong economies. And their economies are mixed.

[pnwmom]

63. We should chuck it and replace it with what? n/t

[harmonicon]

76. kittens?

[Common Sense Party]

102. Chuck it and replace it with what? How?

How would this "chucking" be carried out? We currently have private ownership of property and businesses. How do you propose we change that system? Nationalize everything? Follow the Venezuela model? How many capitalists are going to go along with your anti-capitalist idea, do you think?

[TZ]

38. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates

have given BILLIONS to help impoverished people in Africa, in particular. So do a lot of rich entertainers as well like Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt. George Clooney..etc.
Not all rich people are selfish and uncharitable.
Class war is not my thing. Any more that I like the right's culture wars

[harmonicon]

43. but how did they get that money?

They should never have that much money in the first place.

[MonkeyFunk]

50. Warren Buffett invested well

Bill Gates built a company called Microsoft.

[harmonicon]

78. I know

I think investing in the market is completely filthy. And Microsoft lost anti-trust cases against them. Some company he built there... oh, sure he got his money illegally, but what a guy!

[I work for workers]

106. Just cause it's my pet peve, Microsoft WON its antitrust case.

The case was complete nonsense, as was the recent case it did lose against the EU.

Both hinged on Microsoft's evil behavior of packaging its software programs (first IE, then Windows Media Player) along with it's operating system. God forbid a company ever give it's clients a deal. :eyes:

[rzemanfl]

40. Just tax them like we did under Eisenhower. Adjust the Estate

Tax for inflation but impose it at the same 1950's rates on the adjusted numbers. That would be fair. The rich didn't suffer in the '50s.

[dysfunctional press]

42. not to extinction, actually...

but it would be nice to see some type of "virtual maximum" income set-up through a 90-95% upper-upper-end tax bracket.

[Redstone]

45. Balls. I'd bet EVERY CENT I HAVE that if you, yes YOU invented something that sold

millions of copies, and made you millions of dollars, you'd change your mind in a New York minute.

You'll deny that, of course. But you KNOW you would. It's human nature.

(Jealousy is human nature as well...)

Redstone

[blonndee]

47. And that is the Alger myth, isn't it?

At least how it has evolved in the American consciousness. A very RARE occurrence indeed and one for which I think the OP made room.

[harmonicon]

56. I know I wouldn't change my mind

Sometimes I think about things like how it would be nice to some day be able to buy a new car that I really liked... not a mercedes, maybe a VW. How I'd like to be able to pay off my student loans. That if I got rich, I'd pay off the mortgages for my parents and siblings who have done so much to make me the person I am. I don't even know what I would do with millions of dollars.... I like small houses over the big ugly ones that so many people do. I would certainly buy more avocados - they're expensive. I bet if I had millions, I'd eat lots of avocados and fresh basil.

Really it seems like having all of this money is silly.... what do people do with it? There's this idea that people are given money based somehow on the value of their work or something, but it's not true. I think in hopes that it is true, people buy giant houses and cars in hopes that other people will see it and then think they're good at something for having them.

Let me put it this way: If I, personally, had to choose between making 20k a year and having all US citizens, especially children, have healthcare and free, quality education through college, or having 1million a year and keeping the status quo, I'd take the 20k in less than a heartbeat.

[originalpckelly]

64. The top 1% only controls 1/3 of the wealth.

The problem is that even if we democratize it completely, it will not magically solve our problems. Most of the percentages of profit in most companies are not higher than 20%. That's not enough to solve the problems you speak of.

1 million dollars sounds like a lot, and to one person it can be. But if you democratize that between a million people, they only get a dollar. We can all use a dollar, but it's not going to solve the problems of the world.

[FogerRox]

87. Bill Gates invented something... ?

[readmoreoften]

176. Bill Gates was a prep school businessman. /nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

131. If I won the lottery, I'd say...

Thank you so very much idiots, for allowing me to be taxed less, so each of you can pay more and do without. I would go on with, tax cuts for the rich must be permanent.

However, I would take my millions and be happy the rest of my life with what I have. Unlike the Wealthy Elite, I would NOT be concerned about how much more I could make and screw others out of, just because I could. There simply would not be a need for more money with me. Just one modest home and I would keep my same lifestyle. By the way, I am not jealous of anyone who is wealthy or all the crap they have. I have never been one to envy what others have, and I do not have a small penis complex to compensate for.

It is very wrong for the richest person in this nation to have more of a voice in our government over any homeless person.

[Lorien]

139. Most people would. I remember once writing out a check for $37,000

it was a tax payment. I was obviously doing well that year. My accountant said "Wow, you're not very upset about this, are you? I lot of my clients throw a fit when they have to make a tax payment that size" I just thought of myself as being very, very fortunate that I COULD write that check. Really, how much is enough? But he continued to say that often the wealthier a person became, the more upset they became about paying taxes. Bizarre.

[galileo3000]

46. Not me.

[harmonicon]

48. YES!

We ought to. We should have a progressive tax that would work for all Americans. If the minimum wage were raised to give people a fair amount of money ($15 - $30/hr depending on where one lives) and all people were taxed a percentage of their income above that amount on every dollar earned, to the point where take-home pay would never be above a few hundred thousand a year for any one person. I can't imagine spending that much money myself, but people somehow do.... Of course, things probably wouldn't have to get to that point, if employers were legally obligated to pay their employees a living wage. All of these taxes could be put into universal healthcare and free education to at least the university level. There are countries that do these things, and their citizens have a much higher standard of living, on average, than we do. Why can't we get the message out?

[KG]

51. works for me!

eat the rich! outta the palace, and into the ditch! :headbang:

[sandnsea]

52. No. I'd like fair pay and benefits

again, and fair taxes. I'd like people to get the money they work for.

[brazos121200]

53. High tax rates for the rich never seems to work. There always

seems to be an exemption to help them evade their taxes just when they need one. I wonder why? Could it be that they also control the politicians who write the tax laws?. You can't beat them at their own game.

[TahitiNut]

57. I'd be happy to see a return to the FIT policies and rates of 1976.

It wasn't "perfect" but it was one fuckofalot better than today.

[lovuian]

59. I want them to pay their share and thats alot more

than what they are paying now

[Prophet 451]

60. Uh, no

Not to extinction. However, I wouldn't mind pushing the top rate up to, say, 75% (number plucked from the air so might not be practical) so long as it was properly graduated. I also wouldn't mind it going even higher for high-end unearned income (i.e. capital gains), that can go up to, say, 90%.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Extinction? No, but certainly there should be a hefty increase in taxes

for those at the top. I would have no problem with a 90% tax rate on income over 1,000,000, for example, adjusted annually for inflation of course.

[Balbus]

66. Jealousy is an ugly face...

[NI4NI]

68. not really, but off shore tax loopholes may need attention

[Rowdyboy]

69. Before or after we behead them?

Personally, I'd be content to return to the fiscally responsible days of the Clinton administration when we were within 10 years of eliminating the national debt. Then economic justice might be achievable.

[izzybeans]

70. I wouldn't, rather I'd like to see every person within our borders receive the same

benefits of living here. We can fight about what tax rate is equitable but its insane that we still fight about whether or not each and every one of us is responsible for the welfare of all. I don't care if you are homeless or Bill Gates we all deserve an equal share of the purchasing power the tax pool affords us.

[Mutineer]

77. I'm not a communist or a socialist

so no, taxing them into extinction does not appeal to me. Taxing them fairly, at the same rate I am would do for me just fine.

[ShaneGR]

83. EXACTLY!!!

Fair taxation is the right way to go, some DU'ers don't get that idea.

[Wiley50]

79. I'd much rather see them lined up against a brick wall and shot n/t

[ShaneGR]

85. Ya, like the Jews during WWII, lets just exterminate, nt..... not really

sarcasm, I hope thats what you were saying.

[JanMichael]

84. Raised hand.

Yes I would like to see a different type of economy and different type of governance system.

[spacelady]

90. How about taking the upper cap off Social Security? They must

pay into Social Security based on their entire earnings, not just up to some arbitrary cut-off point.

[lancer78]

107. Yeah, but

if they paid more into SS, then they would be entitled to take more out. I don't think that will solve the SS problem.

[spacelady]

151. I wonder if ultra wealthy people would be willing to waive their

benefits when they are of the age to receive them? Are they forced to draw SS? I wish I knew more about the system; I'll have to study up on that!

[Occam Bandage]

93. Extinction? I'd rather we just tax them until we can provide health care and education.

After that, keep your profit motive.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

97. Nawh,,,Just enough to put them on the endangered species list.

:D

[JVS]

98. Have you forgotten who calls the shots?

[creeksneakers2]

99. I don't want to tax the rich to get even with them.

I'm not even mad at them. Unless they did something illegal or unethical to get their money, I assume they they provided society with something of the same value as the money they received.

We do have to rely on society's strongest members to pull extra weight. The poor can't afford to pay taxes. The middle class pays as much as they can afford, and that's with great sacrifice. Somebody has to make up the share the poor can't pay and the rich are the most able.

The rich were taxed at higher rates under Bill Clinton and the economy prospered. Going from the 35% top rate we have now back to 39% can't hurt. Charlie Rangel is talking about 41% and that's not much different so its not much of a risk. We had higher taxes on dividends and capital gains before and everything went fine. The exemptions for federal inheritance taxes was too high before Bush got there. Now its at a criminal level. A $250,000 exemption is generous enough.

As long as the rich are paying, its tempting to keep favoring more government spending. Such thinking can lead to the country getting carried away, and at some point would hurt the economy. There ought to be some restraint on raising taxes on the rich until the economic consequences are determined. Taxing all income for SS on top of what has already been proposed might be too much.

[Common Sense Party]

101. Not at all. I think this is one of the more obtuse ideas I've seen

on DU, and believe me, I've seen MANY.

[leeroysphitz]

103. I don't know about extinction but how about taxed FAIRLY.

You know on par with everybody else in the friggen country. The $90,000 dollar exemption for S.S. bullshit would make a fine start.

[Dorian Gray]

108. Nope...

don't agree. In my work (Fundraising, Charities, etc.) the wealthy are our biggest donors. Without them, we'd be up shit's creek. And I find that most of the wealthy people that i deal with have quite progressive ideals, are kind, and give a lot to people to try to right their communities.

Of course, I only deal with the wealthy who are interested in local philanthropy. There are many others who aren't quite so nice, and I don't deal with them at all. But, I think that the average tax rates from the past 20 or so years have been just fine. I'd reinstate what was in effect during the Clinton years, but wouldn't add anything punitive on top of that.

[lancer78]

109. I think that

the max tax rate should be around 49%. That includes capital gains and dividends. I don't think someone should be taxed more then 50% of their AGI.

[GeneCosta]

111. No one should be a billionaire

It doesn't take a socialist to realize that. No one person is responsible for all that wealth. It falls on the backs of the workers and the people who influenced that person's decision. Bill Gates, for example, would be nothing without the work of others.

[Ikonoklast]

126. And others are employed because of Bill Gates

And what he helped create. It is not a one-way street.

There are those that have benefited greatly from being in the employ of entrepreneurs; it is a collective effort toward success.

[cali]

115. nope. just raise taxes on them so that they again pay their fair share. n/t

[Kansas Wyatt]

117. UPDATE:

The reason I posted this is because there HAS been class warfare going on in this country. The upper class has been destroying the lower and middle classes, whether you choose to believe it or not. When in a war, you do not win by fighting FAIR, you fight to win.

So, it was my intent to reconcile what has taken place over the last thirty years, where the Wealthy Elite have had it very good at the lower and middle classes expense. 'Tax cuts for the rich' at the expense of everyone else is what this war has been all about. Do the Wealthy Elite give a shit about the working family who struggles to make ends meet? Do they give a shit about the homeless person in the street? The Wealthy Elite could care less. Sure there may be a few exceptions, but like 'tax cuts for the rich,' sometimes there is a negative affect on the innocent, like the innocent, 'tax cuts for the rich' has affected the last thirty years.

I want the RECKONING for the last thirty years. We didn't start this WAR, they did, and they are the ones who should pay dearly. If it results in a mass extinction of the upper class, then so be it. They do not give a shit about how many lives they destroy with their greed, so their destruction is the reckoning of their war. Be fair and give them an inch, and they will manipulate the system again to benefit only them.

Their WAR... Their RECKONING!

[Lorien]

138. With the system as it is, only the mega wealthy can wage class warfare

they own our government and our media, so how do you propose to "fight" them?

And no, not all of the wealthy are your enemy. Many of them do indeed fight for our side. Look at Micheal Moore, Sean Penn, Warren Buffet, or Al Gore (among many others).

[brentspeak]

118. There's nothing wrong with being rich

But there is something wrong with getting rich by exploiting/cheating the average working man and woman. A very big difference.

[mitchum]

119. But...but...but...we're all going to be rich someday!

Why do you hate America?
Why do you hate the magic carrot?

[AlCzervik]

120. how about having them pay their fair share?

[slackmaster]

123. The problem with taxing the wealthy punitively is demonstrated by the AMT

Punitive taxes have a nasty tendency to work their way down the food chain. The definition of "wealty" becomes diluted as a hungry government spends more and more of the peoples' money to sustain itself.

[earth mom]

124. Now that would be a dream come true.

:evilgrin:

This class war is getting old.

[mainer]

127. And communism worked REALLY well, didn't it?

Trust me. As soon as you eliminate the current billionaires, there'd be more fighting to take their place. It seems to be human nature to try to accumulate as much as one can. Even among socialist countries, a wealthy elite still existed.

It's animal instinct. Think about wild horses. They try to accumulate as many mares as they can, and fight off any usurpers. Do you suppose any stallion would be nice and share his mares?

[backscatter712]

129. Not extinction. Tax them their fair share though.

Time to resurrect the classic progressive tax system that we still have in name - where the rich pay more than the poor. Eliminate all the tax breaks the rich have been enjoying under the Bush administration, and maybe raise the tax rates a couple notches. Keep the inheritance tax (but don't call it the "Death Tax") - fix it so family farms can still be passed down, but don't eliminate it.

[Beelzebud]

133. How about they just pay the same tax percentage as middle class folks?

[Lorien]

136. No thanks. I have wealthy friends who worked their asses off

to get where they are. Most of them are in the entertainment industry. You may have enjoyed their films. They got where they are with a combination of talent, hard work, luck, and passion. Not greed; passion. They love what they do, so they excel at it. Why should they be stripped of the fruits of their labors just because I'M struggling??? Why should I resent them for being offered what they have? Would you honestly turn down a million dollar bonus check because you thought wealth is evil? What would that accomplish? I've made six figures a year and I've lived in crushing poverty. Wealth never made me happier-it just took away the intense stress of poverty. It does not bring joy in and of itself. Poverty CAN bring unhappiness and suffering, though. I'm dealing with that right now. The answer is simple; make everyone pay their fair share. As Warren Buffet says; why should he be taxed 17% while his secretary-who makes $60,000 a year-is taxed 30%? It should be the other way around-which won't destroy the rich, just make society a bit more egalitarian. A cap should be placed on CEO pay and benefits. No more golden parachutes. And corporations should pay every last penny of taxes that they owe. If they are "persons" then they should be taxed like wealthy persons.

The system is certainly broken, but don't blame every successful person for that. They are not all out to "get" you or victimize you. Be as jealous as you want to of them; you obviously have never known one personally, otherwise your perceptions of them would be far different than they are.

[Kansas Wyatt]

141. Correcting a 'broken system' is the point.

They benefited from the broken system, so let them pay to correct the problem.

Oh, and along with your innocent wealthy people, who do try to do good, there are millions of innocent people who have worked their asses off, only to be enslaved and destroyed by that 'broken system,' that the wealthy have benefited from. There can only be so many winners, but it shouldn't be at the expense of everyone else.

[Zorro]

144. The system isn't broken

The system doesn't owe you a living.

If you have have neither the ambition or interest in finding or creating opportunities to improve your lot in life, well then that's your problem.

There are consequences for decisions -- or indecisions -- made.

Maybe you should stop whining and get the hell out of Kansas.

[Sanctified]

145. How is stealing from someone fixing a broken system.

If your solution of taxing the wealthy 100% were to go into effect how many wealthy people do you think would stick around?

Your solution would destroy our country.

[B Calm]

148. For what it's worth...

I believe the US is in paradigm shift, the US is an over developed country, and the easy money's been made. The tax code policy over the last 20 years has successfully provided incentives for US industry to make many Americans and America the richest country in the world. However, at this juncture, we have an aging population with a high cost/high benefit workforce, a mature consumer base, the easy natural resources have been mined or exploited, and the soils in our bread basket called the Midwest are nutrient depleted and require significant intensive farming methods e.g.; pesticides and petrol chemical fertilizers to maintain yields, which also cause the highest levels of cancer on the planet. As far as Global industries are concerned, there are cheaper and more plentiful natural resources elsewhere to exploit, cheaper labor and younger developing consumer markets outside the US that present more attractive investment opportunities. Industry would prefer not to make any further investments into the US, thus capital flight is inevitable (in spite of tax policies), ... the US is a Cash Cow to be milked and harvested to funnel investment funds internationally. The good times have come to an end, and no one dares tell you this, because it might cause a panic.

Americans need to face up to the fact that their $20k, $100k and $500k stock investment portfolios are not going to do any thing for the economy while big companies like Microsoft are taking their profits to invest in China, India, Brazil and Eastern Europe. Why provide a tax incentive via the capital gains tax rate, at the expense or burden of the American Taxpayer when the investments aren’’t being made into the US economy to generate jobs for Americans? So the bottom line is its time to revisit that tax policy because the average taxpayer is subsidizing Global industrialization with no benefits for them. Once they wake up to this fact the market is going to going to get dumped big time. Many have already done this and are putting money into gold.

Here is an historical example of how the game is played and hopefully will provide enough incite to understand the current situation. In order to get railroads built across the nation in the mid 19th century, the government gave huge tracts of land to the railroads in Indian Territory. This provided an incentive to build the tracks and maintenance depots. Soon thereafter, the railroads realized that they had no customers to make freight carrying operations profitable. Hence they encouraged the government to provide incentives to settlers to move West to create working farms and ranches who would need freight services to carry their output to markets East, thus the impetus for various homestead acts, etc. As soon as the West was settled and made safe by driving the Indians to live on their reservations, the railroads, decided that they could regain some of this land by increasing their shipping costs to a level that made many farms/ranches unprofitable. Many of these farmers sold out and were driven to cities to become the labor for much of the new industrial factories being built in the north and latter this provided labor for the auto industry. Furthermore, when the railroads gained monopoly power and it was proven they betrayed the public trust all was neither forgotten nor forgiven. The progressive party came about. Also, when it came time to provide incentives for the transportation systems of the future, the railroads were scorned over autos which became the preferred industry, while the rails declined.

Well, essentially we are repeating history; we are at the point where the railroads raised prices to drive the farmers off their land. The tax code was changed over the last 20 years to create wealth, and it accomplished this feat extremely well. Corporations were given "free land" the ability to issue stocks and the public received incentives to homestead-IRA, 401k plans, Pensions, Mutual Funds, etc. Now just like the railroads, they betrayed the public trust (stock options, insider trading, pro forma accounting, cooked books, dishonest business practices, etc) while stock prices continue to tumble and share buybacks continue at record levels...just like the railroads buying back the land of the farmers they defrauded. And now the question remains will the public forgive?

If it was not for the war, I think the public would and should be outraged, turmoil is simmering. A judgment day will come....

I am expecting that future tax methods may include a VAT or national sales tax to discourage consumption, encourage savings and stop tax cheats. A greatly reduced income tax or its elimination would encourage small business development, a reduced tax enforcement agency, and a great deal of personal freedom. Finally, a wealth tax as a recovery mechanism for all the benefits large businesses received at the expense of 99% of the population and for protection services provided by the US government...

[libodem]

140. I think

that is what the Republikans would have everyone believe is the goal of all Democrats. That we make every one a Socialist by holding the wealthy down. Hell, they are moving to the Cayman Islands anyway. I think we should have Anarchy and no one should pay taxes. We should get with our migrant brothers and have a big strike, and all move to Mexico. (Not really, I'm joking) But just a reminder about the Bushit tax cuts: Annual income 10,000 your take home pay raise was 5 cents/hr =($8)= medium Domino's pizza every month. $20,000, made 21 cents/hr ($36) basic cable every month. $35,000 made 43 cents/hr = ($71) two pampers baby dry value packs a month. $55,000 74 cents/hr = ($123) car insurance on a '99 Accord. $100,000 $1.73/hr =($289) iPod mini + 40 iTunes. $200,000 $3.72 = ($620) pair of Manolo Blahnik Sedara d'Orsay pumps. $1,000,000 = $31,61/hr = ($5,268)a month = 12-day cruise for two on the Queen Mary 2. Just sayin'.

[Canuckistanian]

143. How about the wealthy just paying their fair share?

How about going back to the letter and spirit of progressive taxation?

Tax EVERYONE according to a SINGLE fixed, graduated scale. That means THE SAME rate regardless of whether it come from a paycheck, capital gains, inheritance or stock bonuses.

Plug the loopholes. No more exemptions available only to the rich.

And ENFORCE those laws equally.

[B Calm]

146. A wealth tax as a recovery mechanism for all the benefits large businesses

and the top 1% received at the expense of 99% of the population and for protection services provided by the US government.

At the same time we need a greatly reduced income tax or its elimination. It would encourage small business development, a reduced tax enforcement agency, and a great deal of personal freedom.

Judgment Day!

Just my thoughts and opinion... and I'd vote for it in a minute!

[spanone]

149. i hope you're never rich...everyone should pay their fair share

[Marr]

150. The uber-wealthy, yes. It's simply not healthy for a democracy to

support a class of people who have such wealth that they will never be required to lift a finger. I'm not talking about people who make a few hundred thousand dollars a year-- they aren't wealthy.

I mean people with many tens of millions of dollars. People who make money by having money, not by actually doing something. You know- the people who suddenly seem to populate our entire government and all the corporate board memberships. That economic class should be made extinct, absolutely.

[Mike03]

153. Wow. I have some questions for you:

1. What do you define as "wealthy" nowadays? I find that there are a lot of people who don't understand how the definition of wealth has evolved, and they believe (minute) sums of money that are no longer very large constitute "wealth." They want to tax these people to death even though they are the new upper-middle class. If you mean Warren Buffet/Bill Gates wealthy, that's one thing. If you mean anybody who has a few million after decades of struggle, then you want to eviscerate the new upper middle class, the bulk of whom I would suppose are Democrats and responsible for the majority of charitable giving in this country.

2. What on earth do you mean by the statement:

"they are the ones who benefited by driving up the national debt and who owned the politicians driving up the debt?"

This sounds like a proper attack against corporations, not individuals. It's not intelligent to assume that everyone who has money is corrupt or to blame for the problems or poverty of the underclasses. Besides, those who are more fortunate do give to those who are in need--a far more direct way of helping the needy than taxation, where the money vanishes into the pockets of the politicians. Think about that.

The bigger problem with this statement is that it's not the wealthy who drove up the national debt. It's the indebted consumer who can't pay for what they are buying. If you are borrowing rather than paying as you go, you are a major cause of the national debt.

This is either disingenuous, idiotic effusion in a moment of insane passion, or simply ignorance.

3. Do you believe there are any wealthy liberals? If so, do you want to deprive them of the ability to give to your candidates and your causes? At what point do they say simply "Fuck You, I'll give it to an animal shelter or some already-fully financed source that's not lashing out at me?"

4. Who do you think is more likely to give to liberal causes? Rich Republicans or Rich Democrats?

[Swamp Rat]

154. ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!

ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!

[piedmont]

155. Not me-- I like capitalism and LIBERTY.

Should they pay more than they do now? Hell yes. Should we reform how corporations are treated in our society? Don't get me sarted. But I'm not into penalizing people for making smart decisions in life or having good fortune.

[krispos42]

166. Too much wealth in the hands of too few destroys liberty and freedom

The Supreme Court has said that money is a form of free speech.

Therefore, the more money you have, the more free speech you have. Since the majority of income and liquid assessts in the country are owned by the top one or two or five percent of the people, those 1 or 2 or 5 percenters are outshouting the rest of the population. And since they are, Congress' opinions amd perspectives and actions reflects that.

We need to determine an optimal percentage of the country the top 5% (or whatever) should own, and institute tax policies towards that goal. If we decide it should be 25%, and it's currently 60%, then skew the taxes against them until it's where it should be.

[readmoreoften]

177. So you believe in keeping people penalized for having "bad fortune"? /nt

[piedmont]

192. If I believed that, I would have said it.

I believe in helping people who have had bad things happen to them. Your fallacy lies in believing that the two are mutually exclusive.

[stirlingsliver]

156. Arrogant, Greedy, Sneaky People

The rich are, for the most part, arrogant, greedy, sneaky people who don't gie a shit about me and the kind of people I know and love.

In fact, the rich look down on people like me. They think I exist only to serve them and to make them richer.

Fuck them.

Fuck them all.

Tax them all into oblivion.

In fact, tax them until THEY know what it is like to be poor -- to look up and see only an arrogant face laughing back at THEM.

[Zorro]

160. For someone who isn't rich

you certainly have a strong opinion about what rich people are like.

Seems to me that you think you're some sort of victim of a conspiracy of rich people.

What kind of contribution do you make to improve society?

[Raine]

173. I guess the Kennedy's

such as JFK and RFK were "arrogant, greedy, sneaky people who don't give a shit" about you or anyone else. :sarcasm: :eyes:

[Lurking Dem]

188. Tax them until

they no longer can invest in or start companies that will provide jobs for people! THAT'LL show 'em!

wtf?

You know, I used to be poor. I know what it's like to depend on government assistance, to go to bed hungry, to have limited options.

And now I'm not. Now I employ people. I pay them well and provide benefits. I give to charities and political campaigns.

I don't "look down" on the people I employ. I don't think they exist merely to serve me or enrich me. I am not a slave holder.

Your view is extremely naive, prejudicial, and vituperous.

[onenote]

157. what is your definition of "wealthy"?

And how did you arrive at whatever line you're drawing between wealthy and not wealthy?

[krispos42]

159. Have a single-bracket income tax.

75% of everything over $75,000 adjusted gross income for singles, bump it up to $125,000 or $150,000 for married.

I'm certainly not going to cry because A-Rod's net income for 2008 will "only" be $7,000,000.

Do something similar for corporations as well. Have tax rates based on revenue and profitability. A small company that is highly profitable is taxed less than a big company with the same profit percentage. Capital investment in facilities and equipment would be a deduction as well.

Make the first %$50,000 of an employee's payroll some sort of tax deduction for the company, as well as retirement contributions and health/vision/dental insurance.

To lower their taxes, employers would have to pay their employees more and give more benefits including end-of-year bonuses to the line workers, spend their money on better equipment and processes, pay their executives less, and maybe even lower wholesale prices in order to avoid the higher tax brackets.

Maybe have some sort of special penalty if executives salaries are too many times that of line-worker wages.

I'm all for lowering CEO, celebrity, and professional athlete salaries, but they are being driven by the market.

The CEO of United Health Care has hundreds of millions of dollars in options and assets. UHC made a choice: give their CEO a hundred million dollars a year, or give him ten million a year and give 15,000 people free medical care for a year. You can guess what they did.

[baldguy]

161. They should be taxed fairly.

As it stands, they're a burden on the economy.

[MrSlayer]

162. Not to extinction. That's bullshit.

However the ridiculously wealthy should have to pay ridiculous taxes, not less than a middle class person such as myself. 30% of the first million and 50% of everything over the first million would be fair. So if you make 10 million in a year you'd pay 4.8 in taxes and still walk away with 5.2 million clear. Not so bad. No one can say they can't live off of that and be taken seriously.

[warren pease]

167. Agreed. Not to extinction...

Particularly when they could be such a valuable source of protein for the poor. Rather than extinction, I'd prefer a sustainable herd of the rich -- locked in feed lots or running free range, I don't care. They could help ease the transition from a beef-intensive diet to one that produces less CO2 and methane, not to mention heart and circulatory problems.

Gotta be choosy, though. Rich women tend to be a little tough, given various surgical procedures and neuroses that keep them scrawny.

But rich guys, bloated with smug self-satisfaction, are just the opposite. Slow-roasted over a pit of coals, basted frequently with a simple mix of clarified butter, garlic and herbs, served with roasted potatoes, some shitaki mushrooms, maybe some corn on the cob or a little asparagus, and viola!

And tasty?? My, my... Makes boiled missionaries seem pretty bland.

And they're great as leftovers, too. In fact, one rich guy will feed a family of four for a week, given a little kitchen creativity. Soups, casseroles, "rich guy surprise"...

:thumbsup:


Bon Appetit!


wp

[Raine]

165. NO...one of the most ridiculous

ideas I've ever seen posted here.

[tekisui]

169. Check, I'm for it.

Salary cap, or forced philanthropy after Xhundred million dollars. 100% taxation after Xhundred million dollars.

No one on this planet's *worth* is that much greater than another's. At some point, it must be said, "You, sir, have enough. Retire, relax and loosen up."

[Hippo_Tron]

175. It's implausible in our system

Maybe there is a system that can provide all of the innovative benefits of capitalism without the vast income inequalities. In order for such a system to work, though, you would have to change peoples' motivation. People are motivated by money, Americans more so than others.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

179. No, I'd like to see the poor eliminated, not the rich.

The aim of a sane economic policy is to make the poor richer.

If it makes the rich richer too, that's an added bonus, although obviously that's far less important.

[conspirator]

191. BEST REPLY nt.

[natrat]

180. 110% over 750 k--150% over 1.5m

[mainer]

186. Y'know what? I'd stop working.

I'd work only hard enough to get up to the 50% tax bracket, and then I'd call it quits for the rest of the year.

So would everyone else.

You'd have a whole population of talented, able people who wouldn't be contributing their knowledge or skills to the country.

[natrat]

187. i know i was sort of joking--it would be nice to balance the budget with help from the super rich

[Orsino]

181. No. Just tax it enough to make it less hereditary.

The good thing about capitalism--perhaps the only good thing--is the inspiration of wealth. The promise of riches spurs progress, and this driving force shouldn't be outlawed. Let's use it, with proper regulation, to reward innovation.

Just don't let Money vote, because it always votes for itself.

[DeeDeeNY]

182. If the wealthy just paid their fair share, everyone would be better off

Right now, income is taxed much more than wealth is taxed. The gap between the rich and poor is widening, and those in the middle are getting squeezed.
The first step to fairness is to just eliminate all the Bush tax cuts of the last seven years.

[mmonk]

184. Where would you get the revenue make up?

In other words, if inheritance taxes and such are too punitive to pass wealth off to offspring, don't you lose an ongoing source of income to tax? We instead should maximize our options and cut out giving the commonwealth's money to multi national corporations instead of creating a punitive system.

[blindpig]

185. Good luck

They own and control damn near everything. Do you think they will go quietly into the night? It's going to take something other than legislation written by their paid fixers to dislodge them. Such is the confusion of those who identify themselves leftists but affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party. Silly to expect the puppets to cut their own strings.

[stimbox]

189. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

:toast:

[porphyrian]

190. Not to extinction or even bankrupcy, just to the level of their responsibility...

...which is about three major tax cuts and the manifestation of "corporate personhood" ago. Money is power, and with power comes responsibility. If you're going to play on our team, that means taking care of the less fortunate. If that bothers you, go buy your own country.