About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Conservatives > Groups > Politics > Political Party Related > Republican Party > Forum > Thread

Add Conservative Content

Displaying 1 - 15 out of 25 Forum Posts for the Thread:

Why increasing the taxes on the super-rich makes good economic sense

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

2010-03-13 07:59 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 852

Reference: Les Leopold, Alternet, Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?, Mar 12, 2010

Les Leopold in this article describes how in the past year of tough economic times for the poor and middle class, the super-rich -- the plutocrats -- capitalized on last year's recession making it into a "billionaire bonanza." where "most of the richest people on the planet have seen their fortunes soar in the past year.”

And he makes a case fro taxing the super-rich to redistrubute income.

"In the 1950s the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $3 million a year (in today’s dollars) was 91 percent. By 1990 it was 28 percent. The IRS says that the top 400 richest tax filers actually paid a rate of just 16 percent in 2007 (the latest numbers we have). Yep, the richest earners — people who took in an average of $343 million each — probably paid a lower rate than you did. Something to consider as you sign your 2009 return.

"Those 400 people who do so well on tax day have a combined net worth of nearly $1.37 trillion... their wealth has gone up on average by more than 16 percent over the past year — the worst economic year since the Great Depression during which 29 million Americans are without work or forced into part-time jobs.

In debunking all the myths of why the rich should not be taxed, Leopold points out that, "When we cut taxes on the super-rich, we got a different kind of investment boom than the politicians and economists had promised. The wealthy literally ran out of investments in factories, equipment and even services. So they flocked to financial investments — which were supposedly safer and more profitable anyway. The super-rich laid their money down in the Wall Street casino, and helped puff up bubble after bubble. Profits in the financial sector soared. In 1960, the sector accounted for about 15 per cent of all corporate profits. By 2008 (before the crash, that is), it was almost 40 percent. The financial sector crased as the direct result of tax cuts for the super-rich and Wall Street deregulation."

Leopold's Alternet article referenced above is worth reading in it's entirety. It makes a solid case for taxing the super-rich and redistributing the wealth. It runs contrary to the ideology of the Republican Party. Democrats should embrace it instead of running from it.

2010-03-26 08:08 PM

Listening
Lenexa, KS
Posts: 49

Once again, I would like to see some economic models that either support or refute the point that is being made.

I see no argument in the opening post that is more than conjecture.

While I have struggled with income and wealth distribution for some time, I am not convinced that taxing the rich is the answer.

2010-04-15 10:30 AM

Obamacrat
Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 1

I agree. I think the rich that have made all thier money off of the backs of the poor need to be taught a lesson. We need more taxes to help those of us that do not have millions.

There need to be more government programs to help those of us that are not working. The rich need to pay up.

2010-04-18 11:48 AM

Lori
Amarillo, TX
Posts: 9

Anyone read about the Fair Tax. In a nutshell, no one is taxed on their income - we are taxed on what we spend. The more we buy, the more taxes we pay. Looks like a great concept to me...

2010-04-24 08:46 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 852

Reference: FactCheck.org, Unspinning the Fair Tax, May 31, 2007

After searching through several websites on the pros and cons of the Fair Tax proposals, I found that FactCheck.org had the most objective analysis of the key issues. It is worth reading the whole article and make up your own mind, but I'll summarize a few key points:

The Fair Tax rate as proposed is actually 30 percent and not 23 percent, but some think tanks like the Brookings Institute say the rate would have to be even higher, closer to 39 percent to obtain revenue neutraity.

Those Americans making between $40,000 and $100,000 would see an increase in their total tax burden under a Fair Tax system.

Those Americans making more than $200,000 would see their tax burden decrease under the Fair Tax.

There are other issues not addressed by FactCheck.org such as the transition going from Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes to a Fair Tax system to cover these costs. You'll find a lot of biased discussion by just Googling pros and cons of Fair Tax system.

2010-09-05 09:55 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 852

I thought I would resurrect this series of postings on taxes in light of the recent discussions we had in the Social Security thread. Paul Bushheit in his September 2, 2010 article, Top 10 Reasons for Higher Taxes on the Top 1 Percent, in Common Dreams addresses some of the same points raised by Kaboom and others. I'll extract a few:

As explained by Time's economics writer Stephen Gandel, "Consider what [money held by the very rich] is doing now. It is adding to our economic problems not helping. For the most part it is not money being spent and trickling down. Instead it just adds to that global pool of money that sloshes around our financial markets and creates all types of bubbles...it actually makes our economy prone to booms and busts, and less stable."

The current level of inequality is equivalent to that of the years just before the Great Depression. There is reason to suspect that this level of income inequality is dangerous to our economy. The only other year since 1913 that the wealthy claimed such a large share of national income was 1928, when the top 1% share was 23.9%. The following year, the stock market crashed, which led to the Great Depression. After peaking again in 2007, the U.S. stock market crashed in 2008, leading to what some are now calling the "Great Recession."

The belief that rich stimulate the economy is another myth. If anything, the poor stimulate the economy. Low-income earners have a higher "Marginal Propensity to Consume," which means that they spend a greater percentage of their overall income on consumption. High-income earners, on the other hand, will hold more in investments. A University of California study showed that from 1980 to 2003 the share of capital income (stocks, interest, dividends) owned by the richest 1% grew from 37% to 57%.

It's not just rich individuals holding the money. The 500 largest non-financial corporations are currently sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash.

I look back to the period before Ronald Reagan when top marginal tax rates varied from a high of 92 percent to a low of 70 percent. It was a time when government spent those tax dollars hiring private contractors to build America. Now the government doesn't have those tax dollars...instead they are piled up in the coffers of the super rich so they can play monopoly games on Wall Street. I support a top marginal tax rate of 50 percent or higher to redistribute wealth to those poor and middle class workers that spend it and thereby circulate it back into the economy. Spending stimulates the economy...the rich have accumulated way too much money to spend.

Frank

2010-09-05 11:39 PM

rusty
los angeles, CA
Posts: 4

Then why does " Wall Street" give more money to dems than repubs.

2010-09-05 11:40 PM

rusty
los angeles, CA
Posts: 4

Spoken like a true victocrat. stop blaming everyone else for your problems

2010-09-06 03:22 AM

EL PREZIDENTE KABOOM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 700

Hey Rusty......before you go off insulting people.......maybe you should read this by Reuters,

"Wall Street increasingly favors Republicans: study"

August 10th, 2010
www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6795PZ20100810

Mahalo,
Kaboom

2010-09-06 07:22 AM

rusty
los angeles, CA
Posts: 4

it simply will not work. what you will end up with is more people collecting your redistribution of wealth than sp-called rich folks putting into the system. At that point we will be one step closer to flat out socialism

2010-09-06 07:23 AM

rusty
los angeles, CA
Posts: 4

taught a "LESSON". In what ??? because they are successful. How ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!

2010-09-06 08:06 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 852

For every forum post I make, I take pride in having done considerable research to back it up. And I do weigh the pros and cons. I spend a lot of time reading history and alternative views in right wing and libertarian think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute. These think tanks, of course, have their own particular agendas and are funded largely by the super rich. You really have to dig deep to see how they cherry pick data or ignore other data in misrepresenting a particular issue.

I don't mind having my views challenged in these forums. In fact I encourage it. I love a healthy intellectual, fact-based discussion of the nuances of a particular issue. I will back off or clarify when I have misrepresented or hyped a particular point. However, I do expect that those that disagree with me will provide fact based alternatives and not just dismissive comments. If higher taxes on the rich "will not work" please back up that statement with a factual intellectual analysis and not dismiss it outright. We can learn from each other, but only if you contribute something other than the regurgitated "Fox News platitudes."

Frank

2010-09-06 09:55 AM

EL PREZIDENTE KABOOM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 700

Hey Frank....
Please, please, please......
Tell me what you think of "Bad Gonzo Craziness on the Dark-side of the Spectrum." It's my summer treastise.

heh heh....we're kind of like a thunder and lightning split-backfield.....kind of like Jonathan Stewart and DeAngelo Williams of the Carolina Panthers. One goes north-south, up the middle between the tackles, the other likes it on the Edge .

Mahalo,

Kaboom

2010-09-06 10:10 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 852

I loved the Bad Gonzo Craziness on the Dark Side of the Spectrum. But I'm still digesting it and will prepare some comments later. You have a long list of thought provoking and eloquently presented statements, and I want to give it the proper response.

2010-09-06 01:25 PM

EL PREZIDENTE KABOOM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 700

Mahalo, thanks for the positive intial response....
Art is resistance.

On a side note,
Why can't the rightwingers type intelligible sentances; are they discombobulating at all times? Is David Icke right? Are they actual Lizard Beasts? What's happening to our country? Is this mammals vs. the reptillians? Are they Pod People? When are they going to start eating us? Whatever the case, I will carry the flag for the Republic against the space-mutants! Gonzo Forever, Intergalatic hell or high water!

Kaboom

Displaying 1 - 15 out of 25 Forum Posts for the Thread:

Why increasing the taxes on the super-rich makes good economic sense

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES