Plain facts: IRS: 235,413 million-dollar earners

That's all. Even if the government decided to take all of their income, it would NOT be enough to pay off the deficit.

Watch this video to see what stealing all the money from the rich will do:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ&feature=player_embedded"]Eat the Rich![/ame]

We have a SPENDING problem...we have made promises we can't keep.

 

Exactly, but "tax the rich, they can afford it" makes for a compelling talking point.

At the same time, even though Keysnian economics are too simplistic, they do shed some light on transient conditions. Our deficit spending IS "stimulus" spending (so, that $800B stimulus, has really been more like $4T). Pull that out of the economy will be painful unless it is only removed from those who consume far more than they consume.

 

Huh? Do you mean "consume far more than they produce"?

 

Jesus, this old meme.

Stop with the idiotic strawman. Nobody is proposing "taking all the money" from the rich and paying off the debt in a year. You've been watching too much Hannity.

Higher taxes on the top 1% will produce several hundred billion a year in incrased revenue, depending on the rate increase. This will over time not only help keep deficits under control while the economy grows out of debt, but use capital more efficient -- the investment habits of the wealthy tend not to increase standard of living for all sorts of well know reason.

In short, grow up and get educated before you post drivel.

 

Please re-read. A 100% tax on the rich won't pay off the defict, not the debt.

The Bush tax cut on the rich would net $70B, not several hundred billion.

A 100% tax on those earning $250K or more would net $1.2T, only if their income remained the same, and no action was taken to reduce taxes.

The defict is between $1.2T and $1.8T. The debt is over $14T.

Do you want to temper this statement?

 

Yep, fingers moving faster than brain...

 

Yeah which is why nobody is proposing it. Man, what nonsense.

Use Eisenhower's rate on the top 1% and you'd get an extra $150B a year. Jesus man, get out of your Bush Box.

Jesus, man, you're this uneducated. Nobody is proposing getting rid of the Bush deficit in one year. Failed conservative policies left such a mess it will take at least five to balance the budget.

Yep, raise taxes on the rich, watch the economy grow, revenues go up, the deficit is eliminated, and then you pay down the debt.

Hey, Clinton did that. Bush did the opposite.

No, I want to repeat it: get an education in basic tax and accoutning principles before posting this ********** nonsense.

 

A 4% tax increase on the top 1% nets (assuming the rich make no adjustments to taxable income), Eisenhower tax rates just double that....

The ecomonmy grows under what principle? That government is good investors?

Clinton thrived due to the dot.com / tech boom, not due to higher taxes.

Yes, please do.

The rich have grown richer due to government corruption. Some of that increased wealth comes back to politicans, on both sides. That is why the Democrats extended the tax cuts when they had the power to kill them.

 

So who the hell decided that private investment income has to increase standards of living? The Rich don't WORK FOR YOU. DON'T YOU GET IT? YOU WORK FOR THEM!

 

he cant answer..hes banned..lol

 

Many of the wealthy can afford tax lawyers and expert accountants who are very adept at helping their clients hide their incomes. There are plenty of legal loopholes that can be used to greatly understate large business and investment income.

However, I think the emphasis should be on land reform and creating jobs in regions with lower costs of living, rather than just taxing the wealthy. The problem with inequality is that it very inefficiently utilizes available resources and labor. The problem is not so much that the wealthy are earning all the wealth, but rather that the indirect ownership of rural land by the wealthy stands in the way of economic progress. People cannot afford to rent cheap land when the owners of the land live in the expensive cities.

Simply redistributing the incomes of the wealthy to the poor will never be able to bring prosperity to everyone.

 

I found this to be an interesting read regarding tax levels on the rich from somebody I believe knows what he is talking about, Warren Buffet.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/15/news/economy/buffett_taxes/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

 

That is one reason why I am a big believer in a no deductions flat tax. No deductions, no loop-holes. Take a flat amount on any income earned over $40,000.

 

You mean only 234,413 Americans were smart enough to not trust Government Social Security and instead save the 2.3 million dollars it takes to comfortably retire with the same quality of life that a Government Union Worker gets for free?

That's pretty sad.

What's even more sad is you want to take away people's retirement savings and force them onto social security.

 

LMAO

What do you mean "land reform"? You have money, you buy land, you own it. What's to reform? You can't "reform" the free market law of of supply and demand.

 

I invest $10M, and get 10% in return (profits).

I just add my after tax income to the investment and continue to get a 10% return

At 39.9% tax rate:

After 10 years, I have $16.9M, paid $5.62M in taxes
After 20 years, I have $33.5M, paid $14.7M in taxes
After 30 year, I have $54.3M, paid $31.6M in taxes ​

At a 15% tax rate:

After 10 years, I have $20.8M, paid $2.2M in taxes
After 20 years, I have $47.1M, paid $7.2M in taxes
After 30 year, I have $106.5M, paid $18.6 in taxes ​

Note, the total cash at the end of 30 years, what I have + taxes = $85.9M at a 39.9%, and $125.1M at 15%. The economy is $40M larger.

Obviously, Buffet is an investor, not an economist.

Higher taxes definately created more jobs - well, maybe, we're not sure......

 

I agree, but that doesn't mean that the rich can't help out more than they do. A flat tax would be best, so both sides have one less thing to argue about. Of coarse that won't happen though, because the deepest pockets always win.

 

Would you rather have the tax rate of the rich, or the 46% that pay no income tax?

Between those two groups, which steals the most from the rest of us, from the government?

 

What?

Yep, money invested in infrastructure produces a more productive economy for everybody and hence real wealth. Money "invested" in hedge funds, where most of the superwealthy put their money, produces absolutely nothing. The rich invest their money in a manner that is statistically the most inefficient from the perpective of jobs, economic growth, and real goods and services.

Stop watching Fox news.

Pssst: you got it backward.

Yeah, that tired old meme. Only in ********** world are roads, education, and health equal to corruption.

 

The economy is not measured by the amount of stocks you have.

A glaring error which completely destroys your argument.

 

A 100% tax on those earning $250K or more would net $6.5Trillion, or about half of the personal income in the US, which is what they are getting this year.

 

Funny cause only in fantasy land does a broken window grow the economy.

 

Corporation loop holes are more a factor and cutting the loopholes of the wealty will make a major dent in the debt. If that does not show any reduction in deficit, than the USA is up turd creek with no paddle.

We can all expect that unemployment will remane at 10% because that is the new standard for the uSA, and it will go higher when those collecting unemployment run out of gubment cheese.

As a result, the USA consumer base will not be a consumer base as it once was in the boom years of 15 years ago. Expect less production output. Expect no growth, and no more capitlisim off those who are making money.

If you seek growth and capitalism opportunity, seek it in emerging countries, thats where the profit is. By the time the Broadcast media and government tells you this it will be too late. You will be Johny come lately, and others will have taken up the good stuff.

A month or two from today you will see what I have stated being discussed on more intelligent broadcasts like NPR, and PBS. this is the kind of stuff Kevin Treadeu does not want you to know about.

LOL. No I'm not Suzie Orman.

 

$70B for a 4% increase (from 35% to 39%). 100% - 39% = 61%, 61% / 4% = 15.25 * $70B = 1.07T.

$6.5T would have yielded a $426T by not extending the "tax on the rich", the total Bush / Obama tax extention was less than $400T, total.

That isn't my math, that it the Democrats.

 

Why couldn't it?