GOP scam Tax plan cuts for rich and hurts everyone else

It's hardly always the rich that are investing, though. It's the taxpayers that invest, at their own expense, while the rich get to reap all the rewards.

Think about the fossil-fuel companies. They have been amazingly profitable for many decades now, at least since WW2 if not earlier.

And yet, when they need to expand operations, to further increase their profits, while small businesses are forced to invest their own earnings to expand, we still, to this day, give them free subsidies to build more facilities, so they can expand their profits, yet still keep them all.

What about the banks? We want to get banks lending again? So what do we do? We give them trillions in taxpayer money, for free! Even though they should have failed due to fraudulent/reckless business models, we prop them up so they can continue to waste OUR money. Otherwise we print out the money for them, which is still transfer of wealth, because it devalues the value of our own money, or we borrow it so that our kids and grandkids can deal with the burden and pay it back, if not more.

And the rich aren't the only ones to invest. Small businesses invest... We just don't care about them. We stack the deck in favour of the big ones.. If we just let these banks collapse, like we should have, we wouldn't have the apocalyptic end of the world like their fear tactics claimed. Small banks and credit unions could pick up the slack. A more diverse and competitive marketplace would make it better for the consumer. Monopolistic economy only makes it better for the rich. Why does your cable bill keep skyrocketing? Because the competition in the TV business is being squeezed out.

 

No, but since the raised the special privilege low investment tax millionaires pay to 20%, I'm not surprise that they did. And should have. And long ago.

About a million. Which lots of people make. But the article didn't say it was comparing people who made $100k in the 1950 with people making a million now.

From the article: The Internal Revenue Service reckoned that the effective rate of tax in 1954 for top earners was actually 70 percent. Marc Linder, a law professor at the University of Iowa, has shown that a more comprehensive interpretation of income that includes capital gains suggests the real effective tax rate for millionaires was 49 percent in 1953.

How could the richest be paying more taxes now if the effective rate in 1954 was 70% or even 49%? That is like 2x more than it is now.

Why should we do that? It is already beyond inane to be paying SS benefits to the likes of Warren Buffet when the Govt is $17 trillion in debt.

Fine. Taxes are not an investment.

Which of course we should be doing.

How so?

Nor I. Just remove the exemptions.

Folks already are. Problem with making that the sole plan is what do you do with the tens of millions who don't have enough savings?

After 12 years of huge deficits, well past due. But insufficient.

Wake up about what?

 

Why are you dodging all my questions? Other than the obvious reason that you can't answer them?

 

With you big time in the last paragraph. What this country needs is more competition IMHO.

BUT - you didn't really get to my point, which is: there's no way to grow the economy and create more jobs without allowing the rich to get richer. Raise taxes on 'em? They'll put their money to use in other less productive ways that avoid paying the higher tax, or they'll put their money to use offshore. The extent to which they do that depends on the circumstances on the current business climate and the size of the tax hike, but the bottom line is that money flows to where it makes the best return.

 

We've let them get a hell of a lot richer, at the expense of the rest of the country:



Where the hell are the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing jobs?

They already horde their money offshore. Raise taxes on them and their just have less of the nation's income to horde offshore.

Money has been flowing more and more to the 1% since Reagan's "trickle down" revolution. Which isn't surprising, as that was what it was designed to do.

 

The 1% owns about 50% of the outstanding stock, or something ridiculous like that.

When did that happen? Source and link please.

 

Exactly. But instead of taking an honest look like this, many choose instead to accept the pandering, placating baloney spewed by liberal politicians.

 

" We've let them get a hell of a lot richer, at the expense of the rest of the country: "

Not true, income and earnings are not a zero sum game. The rich got richer, but not at the expense of everyone else. If you invested your money in those days as I did, then you got richer too.

" They already horde their money offshore. Raise taxes on them and their just have less of the nation's income to horde offshore. "

Maybe, but the point is that if you raise taxes on the rich then you disincentivize them to invest here.

" Money has been flowing more and more to the 1% since Reagan's "trickle down" revolution. Which isn't surprising, as that was what it was designed to do. "

By default, yes. You are implying that making the rich richer was the goal, which is false. The goal was to get more people working and improve economic growth which did occur; we enjoyed an economic boom for about 25 years starting under Reagan. As I said, there's no way to have an economic boom where the rich don't get richer.

 

So if production is being suppressed by regulation and Obamacare, why aren't prices skyrocketting?

Suppress production with increasing demand and you get higher prices. That's basic economics.

 

Yes. Let's talk about that. Do you remember back at bailout time when folks were outraged about the comp being given to the execs at bailed out companies? And how Obama came out full of outrage and said he was going to put limits on executive compensation? Now look closer. Because what he said and did was limit CASH compensation.....aka salary. He didn't put any limits on noncash compensation, which is what those aggregious stock giveaways are. Because the federal government collects a lot of revenues off of those---they are taxed at the time of granting, not at the time of vesting or sale. Federal government was in no position to do something that would hurt revenues-----Obama HAD to protect the rich in order to protect revenues. But he didn't want everyman to know that, because it isn't in line with the anti-rich talking points of the Dem party. So he fueled the anti-rich sentiment with empty rhetoric, but fueled the pockets of the rich with money.

Wake up.

 

But it has come at the expense of the 90%. The lower 90% now only get 50% of the nation's income, versus 65% before the Reagan trickle down revolution.

Then giving them more money to horde offshore is the height of stupidity, isn't it?

That absolutely was the goal of "trickle down". Let the rich get richer, the benefits will "trickle down" to the middle class.

They were superb at letting the rich get richer. But it didn't "trickle down".

You can certainly have a boom where everyone gets richer, not just the richest at the expense of everyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of waking up, the question I asked was for a source and link to back up this claim: "What about the banks? We want to get banks lending again? So what do we do? We give them trillions in taxpayer money, for free!"

Did you have an response to my question? Or just ranting for the fun of it? In which case you don't need to do it in response to my post.

 

You are overloading your posts with questions. Which is a tactic that folks use when they are losing the bigger argument. I am happy to answer your questions. Let's put some structure to the discussion, though. No need for a bombardment.

 

Slow down. Go back and review what you are doing. It wasn't me who was talking about the banks. You're demanding a source and a link from me when it was another poster who made the comment.

 

My questions simply asked about your own statement. Sorry if you feel overloaded. You can start by answering one.

 

You need to slow down, go back and review what you are doing. My post you to which you responded asked for backup on a statement that was explicitly about trillions supposedly going to the banks for free. My post had nothing to do with executive compensation you were ranting about.

If you don't have anything relevant to say to my post, don't post your rant in response to my post, and then you won't be confused.

 

But it has come at the expense of the 90%. The lower 90% now only get 50% of the nation's income, versus 65% before the Reagan trickle down revolution.

No it has not. Don't know if your numbers are accurate, please provide a link. But what you're saying would be true if the nation's total income was the same, but it's not. You know what the DOW was in 1980? Around 800 points. Know what it is today? 16,600 or thereabouts. So whose gonna make the most money over the past 30 some years? The people with the most money invested, that's who. The top 10%. The bottom 90% had nothing invested, so they didn't get the increase in wealth and income.



Maybe, but the point is that if you raise taxes on the rich then you disincentivize them to invest here. Then giving them more money to horde offshore is the height of stupidity, isn't it?

It's like you totally ignored what I wrote here. When you have a slow economy like now, it is the heighth of stupidity to disincentivize the rich people to invest it in productive uses here in the US. Didn't say anything about lowering taxes, okay?



By default, yes. You are implying that making the rich richer was the goal, which is false. The goal was to get more people working and improve economic growth which did occur; we enjoyed an economic boom for about 25 years starting under Reagan. That absolutely was the goal of "trickle down". Let the rich get richer, the benefits will "trickle down" to the middle class.

They were superb at letting the rich get richer. But it didn't "trickle down".

Yes it did, just not as much as you would have liked.



As I said, there's no way to have an economic boom where the rich don't get richer. You can certainly have a boom where everyone gets richer, not just the richest at the expense of everyone else.


Not on this planet. I don't think you're going to find any situation where any economy boomed but the rich didn't get most of the new wealth. However, if you want to provide an example where I am wrong I will take a look and revise my opinion.

 

In post 106 you said: The 1% owns about 50% of the outstanding stock, or something ridiculous like that.

In post 110, I responded to that comment of yours.

In the post above, you make no sense.

 

Shall we talk about who's family JFK came from? It really wasn't so much political ideology as gaming the system to protect his own, not unlike today.

 

Kennedy's family wealth came from MOB ties they are just a dirty as the Bushes and the nazi ties.

 

There are numerous sources on this phenonemon, which has been well reported in the news. Though probably not Fox, which may explain why you are uninformed.

Here are a couple with detailed analysis:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/graph-of-the-week-the-top-10-income-share-in-usa-1917-2008/

Completely wrong. The portion of the total going to different groups is not dependent on the total staying the same at all.

Exactly. And cut their investment tax rate from 28% to 15%, and whoopee!

The bottom 90% rely much more on earning income. Their wages have been largely stagnant, while corporate profits, CEO salaries, and stock prices soared.

Where are they going to invest? They can invest in Upper Volta but still have to pay taxes on their earnings here.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). We've been incentivinzing the 1% up the ying yang. They've never been so rich or had so much of the American pie, at least since the 1920s.

And where the hell are the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing jobs?

Jobs aren't created by giving the uber rich more trillions to hoard in their offshore accounts. Jobs are created when people who spend money have money to spend.

By default, yes. You are implying that making the rich richer was the goal, which is false. The goal was to get more people working and improve economic growth which did occur; we enjoyed an economic boom for about 25 years starting under Reagan. That absolutely was the goal of "trickle down". Let the rich get richer, the benefits will "trickle down" to the middle class.

Hardly. Virtually all the growth and prosperity of the nation over the past 30 years has gone to the top 10%, and mostly to the top 1%.

Yeah, you've repeated the 1% apologist mantra several times now.

1940s to 1981. The lower 90% share of the nation's income stayed at 65%. They shared in the nation's growth and prosperity.

Then we switched to trickle down.

 

Sure. Let's change the top marginal income tax rate to 70% like Kennedy did. And boost the cap gains tax rate to 25%.

I'm all for it.

 

What does executive compensation in the financial crises have to do with the top 10% owning 50% of the stock market or whatever the exact figure is?

 

Taxcutter says:
...and the heirs will spend it.

 

It is given to them as compensation. Often referred to as noncash compensation. If you research executive pay, often you find lists. And some will show cash comp versus noncash comp. Most highly paid execs get more in noncash comp than in salary. Much more. Noncash comp is taxed at regular income rates (highest bracket) at the time it is granted, even though the exec cannot sell it for a certain period of time afterwards. It's very lucrative for the federal revenue stream.

What I was trying to get you to see is that the large ownership share you cited is something that federal government wants to preserve. Even the politicians like Obama who claim to be for the little guy. So I showed you how Obama talked as if he was going to get tough on those executives in the bailed out companies. When what he was really doing was protecting the bulk of their compensation, because that protects the federal revenue stream.

I am a pretty strong limited government conservative. But I think we need a law that limits the amount of stock grants that can be given to executives when compared to the grants given to the rest of the company's employees. When a company goes public, the company is voluntarily accepting rules in exchange for the opportunity to generate capital. One of those rules should be that stock giveaways cannot be unduly tilted toward executives.

Ironically, this is quite Marxist of me Marx advocated for shared ownership of the means of production. And IMO shared ownership of the means of production (aka owning shares of stock) is something we need more of in this country.

 

But this isn't something that has happened in the last 4 years. It's been growing since 1981.

It is quite Marxist. I don't advocate for such controls which seldom work. But IMO there is a reason you didn't see the kind of ridiculous salaries in the 1950s-70s as you see today. And a 91% marginal tax rate probably had something to do with it among other things.