posted August 20, 2011 03:40 PM            

no one said it would cover EVERYTHING or even the deficit if they did so. he merely sugggested that higher taxes HAVE NEVER DISCOURAGED INVESTING OR BUSINESS and would not do so now!!! 2+2 anyone? oh yes, i forgot, in newconspeak it ALWAYS equals 17, except when it doesn't!

a traitor to his class! lynch him now, since he thinks raising revenue on the richer and richer is "fair".

i hear NO complaints from the conservative crowd about the redistribution of wealth from the middle and working classes to the FORTUNE FEW. not one.

no complaints that all the money people paid into their mortgages, which went into the coffers of the mortgage banks and posted record profits for same, was stolen or that any amends might be made to those now homeless people. not even a donation of blankets!

yet that is the way it always goes when there is no regulation on profiteering, no incentive to keep your business here, and no tax to encourage REinvestment and creation of jobs.

that is why we had antitrust laws. that is why we had the new deal. and that is why unless someone checks the trend NOW, we will have to go even further into the trough - until the morgan stanleys and goldmans start to really feel it too - before it turns around.

posted August 20, 2011 04:01 PM            

quote:

---

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," he wrote.

---

Yes kat, a very very small pea in the pod but fair distribution of the tax burden is my issue.... not necessarily the deficit over all.

but anyhow

------------------
Submit to Love without thinking, as the sun rose this morning recklessly, extinguishing our star-candled minds.

posted August 20, 2011 04:04 PM            

Yes, I didn't pay close enough attention this morning to the fact that the number I used was actually the top 1%'s AGI, not the amount collected from them in taxes. That's what I get for responding from my phone.

posted August 21, 2011 01:17 PM            

Raising income tax rates, raising the capital gains tax and raising corporate taxes are the very last thing any reasonable person would do...if the goal is to produce more jobs and more revenues to the federal government. The tax base needs to be broadened. That will only happen when jobs are produced in the private sector, more people are working and paying income taxes and businesses are experiencing more sales and paying more income taxes.

This business of "tax fairness" is an absurd class warfare argument on which demoscats hang their election hats. The 1% of top income earners already pay 40% of all income taxes. They're paying their share and a hell of a lot more.

The top 10% of income earners already pay
70%+ of all income taxes. They're already paying their fair share and a hell of a lot more.

demoscats haven't learned any new tricks since the 5th rate thinker, Karl Marx kicked the bucket in the 19th century.

There's an old saying..."you can't teach an old dog new tricks". That seems to hold true for demoscats too.

Warren Buffett’s Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit, Says Tax Foundation
Friday, August 19, 2011
By Matt Cover

Taxing millionaires and billionaires more – a position advocated by billionaire Warren Buffett and President Barack Obama – won’t make much of a dent in the national debt or the record federal budget deficits, a new study finds.

“Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation's deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent,” the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s David Logan writes.
“There's simply not enough wealth in the community of the rich to erase this country's problems by waving some magic tax wand,” said Logan.

Buffett, in an August 15 op-ed in the New York Times said it was time to stop “coddling” the wealthy and called on Congress to raise taxes on those making $1 million or more.

“But for those making more than $1 million there were 236,883 such households in 2009 I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more there were 8,274 in 2009 I would suggest an additional increase in rate,” Buffett wrote.

“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” wrote Buffett.

However, according to the Tax Foundation study written by Logan, even taxing the nation’s millionaires at 50 percent – even eliminating loopholes and deductions – would only reduce the deficit by 8 percent and the national debt by 1 percent.

“[T]aking half of the yearly income from every person making between one and ten million dollars would only decrease the nation's debt by 1%,” the report said.

Taxing millionaires at an effective tax rate of 50 percent would raise only $120 billion more, according to Tax Foundation calculations based on IRS data.

Taxing those who make $10 million or more at an even higher rate, as Buffett advised, would also do little to reduce the deficit and debt. Tax Foundation calculations indicate that taxing these individuals at an effective rate of 100 percent would only net the government $186 billion, reducing the deficit by 12 percent and the debt by an additional 2 percent.

In fact, the only way for the government to solve its fiscal issues with revenue would be to confiscate every single dollar from every single American making $200,000 or more per year, the study said.

“Finally, to put everything in perspective, think about what would need to be done to erase the federal deficit this year: After everyone making more than $200,000/year has paid taxes, the IRS would need to take every single penny of disposable income they have left. Such an act would raise approximately $1.53 trillion,” reported the Tax Foundation.

posted August 21, 2011 01:33 PM            

but 12% is a pretty good contribution, isn't it? and cuts have already been agreed to as well.

meanwhile obama has put monsanto's VP in a position to give the food supply to monsanto...another fed bureau dismantled to private interest and not a penny of the taxpayers' money returned to them though billions have been collected to ensure a safe food supply.

ENOUGH of the left/right bullsh*t. do you think the republicans or conservatives are going to turn this around with an election? do you want your grandchildren eating food that causes multiple deformities and sterility?

posted August 21, 2011 01:59 PM            

Tell it to O'Bomber. He's "green". He'll get it! Right?

Yeah, if only government could confiscate 100% of the income of the rich...what a wonderful world this would be!

posted August 23, 2011 05:42 PM            

quote:

---

By Lee Fang on Aug 20, 2011 at 7:40 pm

America’s current tax system forces people making $50,000 a year to pay a higher rate than hedge fund managers making $2.4 million an hour. Warren Buffett penned an op-ed last week declaring that America’s super-rich have been “coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress.” Lamenting the numerous tax loopholes and special breaks afforded to billionaire investors, Buffett noted that in his entire career, even when capital gains rates were as high as 39.9 percent, he never saw anyone “shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.”

Charles Koch, head of the massive petrochemical, manufacturing, and commodity speculating Koch Industries corporation, has responded to Warren’s call for shared sacrifice: “No Thanks.” In a statement to right-wing media, Koch states:

Much of what the government spends money on does more harm than good; this is particularly true over the past several years with the massive uncontrolled increase in government spending. I believe my business and non-profit investments are much more beneficial to societal well-being than sending more money to Washington.

Koch’s “non-profit investments” include the group founded by his brother David, “Americans for Prosperity” (formerly known as Citizens for a Sound Economy). As ThinkProgress first reported, AFP was one the first and most well-resourced drivers of the anti-Obama so-called “Tea Party” movement. Koch-funded Tea Party events have featured speakers comparing health reform to the Holocaust, and in some cases have sponsored rallies with leaders of the “birther” conspiracy theory.

Among the Koch brothers’ other non-profit investments include far-right conservative think tanks dedicated to cheerleading the war in Iraq, spreading anti-science propaganda, and smears claiming that the poor do not really suffer. Koch has given money to educational initiatives, but in exchange for control over academic freedom that simply furthered Koch’s political beliefs. These “investments” at best advance Koch’s political ideology and at worst misinform American voters. Either way, they are hardly a replacement for “government spend[ing]” on things like food assistance and basic medical service.

According to Forbes, the Koch brothers have seen their wealth rise $11 billion in recent years, making the Koch brother among the richest in the country by being worth around $22.5 billion each. Much of those profits, however, are due to soaring gas prices and the fact Koch Industries has avoided compensating the public for one hundred million tons of carbon pollution the company produces each year. Other Koch companies also receive significant taxpayer subsidies, despite Koch’s supposed opposition to government spending. This company is among the country’s top sources of carcinogenic chemicals and air pollutants.

America has been good to Charles Koch, providing an environment where his family has made billions. But Koch doesn’t want to give back, especially through more taxation. His charitable foundation, which gives largely to right-wing organizations that support his politics and Koch Industries’ business interests, still only donates about $12 million a year — 0.05 percent of Koch’s net worth. If higher rates were imposed on the super-rich, would Koch retreat to the family’s fabulous mansions, like this one in the Hamptons, aboard its fleet of private jets in a John Galt-inspired temper tantrum? Or would they act like any respectable businessman, and continue to make a profit without complaining?

---

posted August 23, 2011 06:00 PM            

but if taxing a few cents more on dollars OVER a million would take some %% off the deficit, that is not insignificant but a reasonable suggestion TOWARDS a solution. not THE solution but help along the way.

i'm sure the kochs think they know what's best for you and me, rather than the govt. in many cases i agree, the govt is too big and corrupt and a lot of shite gets covered over.

but at least we have a VOTE on how the govt behaves. d'you fancy a stab at what koch's answer would be if we VOTED against his good works?

no? well how's "up yours peons" for starters?

posted August 23, 2011 06:45 PM            

if Chucky is talking about all of our wars and occupations [the permanent resident type of occupation]...I would agree.

'course most of what Chucky grows his money on does more harm than good...

posted August 23, 2011 07:16 PM            

------------------
Submit to Love without thinking, as the sun rose this morning recklessly, extinguishing our star-candled minds.

posted August 25, 2011 12:56 PM            

COULD IT BE THEY STILL DON"T KNOW HOW TO SAY ANYTHING BUT NO?

or could it be that they really want the economy to tank completely before election time???

in other words they don't want ANY money circulating, from rich or below...

or is it just that social security money is in the hands of the government so their massas can't profit from it?

posted August 25, 2011 01:48 PM            

why is it only the rich who benefit from lower taxes????

posted August 25, 2011 02:47 PM            

I agree Kat about the tanking the economy.
thing is, plenty of people see it for what it is, and it is hurting Conservatives.

posted August 25, 2011 05:14 PM            

marco rubio is now spouting about how medicare and social security have "weakened us as a nation" and taught us we don't have to save because the govt will do it for us!

as if the contributions are not coming out of our earnings...try claiming social security or medicare if you haven't paid into them!

the 2% reduction this year put money in people's pockets but it also took away from their benefits in the long run. no one seems to want to tackle the question of how we are SUCKING OFF THE GOVT when we participate in these programs?

that's like saying we are sucking off the insurance companies when we pay into a plan, or the banks when we save money.

posted August 25, 2011 11:10 PM            

but you still don't answer my question. SS is paid into by workers OR THEY GET NO PAYMENTS...you do get that? so is medicare.

so why is giving the participating public a break for another year going to ruin the economy??????

and why would ANYONE trust the banks and wall street managers to run their retirement fund when they see what happened to those that WERE being handled "in the blessed private sector" that holy of holies?

and when you hear the hoary jobs reports do you realize that the PRIVATE HOLY SECTOR is ADDING jobs, and the LOSS OF PUBLIC SECTOR jobs is bringing the figures down?

obama this obama that obama could just as well be your hat!

and if you think jumping from the frying pan will land you in cool water, try and remember its THE FIRE THAT MAKES THE PAN HOT, not the other way around.

posted August 26, 2011 08:41 AM            

There are fewer Americans working now than when O'Bomber was idolized. Since that's true, O'Bomber hasn't "added" a single "new job" in the private sector.

The nutty idea that food stamps return $1.84 into the economy for every dollar of food stamp value is equally specious. If that were true, our economy could be cured by putting everyone on food stamps.

It's not the individual contribution to SS and Medicare which should be put on temporary hold to help the economy. It's the employer contribution which should be given the ax temporarily to spur job creation.