We need to bring back the 90% income tax rate for the super wealthy.

[Cleita]

I was watching a show on TV today about heiresses. One gets a new dress every day and never wears the same thing twice. She bought a necklace worth five million dollars and rented a yacht for a cruise around the Mediterranean. Another has a closet that's bigger than most people's houses filled with designer clothes and shoes. Another owns mansions all over the world including here in the states. (I say nail that one for property taxes.) Another had a cake at her birthday party that cost more than the average car and it goes on and on. When children lack of food, except what they get on free lunch programs and many people don't have adequate health care it's time to take these social register parasites, turn them upside down and shake the money out of them to fund social programs for the needy.

[Taverner]

1. I like the idea, but what's to keep them from going to Switzerland like they did in the 70's

[Cleita]

5. Actually, nothing, but most of them can't move all of their assets there

if they still want to live in Manhattan or ski in Aspen, so we need to nail them for that.

[Swamp Rat]

7. Track them down, bring them back to the USA, tar and feather them, seize 100% of their assets.

The next rich bastard will think more than twice about doing it. :)

[arcadian]

44. I'm ashamed of you Swampy.

You for got "run them out on a rail", all of which is too good for these leeches. :D

[Swamp Rat]

75. LOL!

My bad. :D

[deaniac21]

170. Nice May 12 picture!!

[Kansas Wyatt]

97. Why not?

They would do it to the rest of us.

[Swamp Rat]

101. You damn right!

Joe 6 Pack skips out on paying his minimum wage taxes, and the IRS will fuck him up for good.

[SOS]

165. They're doing it to me right now

Made $17K in 2008 - self-employed.
$13K taxable.
Taxes totaled $2,200. Couldn't pay it all.
Now I'm getting the IRS treatment - installment plan fees, EITC disallowed, penalties, interest.
It's hell.

And my total tax rate on taxable income (16.9%) is higher than John Paulson.
Paulson made $2 billion in 2008 and pays 15% capital gains.

This system sucks.

[penndragon69]

141. It won't work..

The filthy rich will always be able to buy new ways of side stepping all taxes.
They are a disease ridden parasite that we can never get rid of totally, and that's just too bad.
High taxes didn't prevent the Vanderbilts or Rockafellers from amassing obscene fortunes on the backs of the people.
Bring back the Guillotine !

[Swamp Rat]

2. Too low... 99.99% over $250,000

Tudo bem Cleita? :hug:

[Cleita]

8. Hey nice to see you back and making those photoshops again Swampy!

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

31. Eu tô visitando DU somente pouco dias.

Tô vivendo no Brasil agora, e não sei quando vou volver ao EUA. :D :hug:

É festa Junina do São João agora... OBA! não quero sair daqui! :)

[Cleita]

34. Oh boy, Carnival you lucky fellow.

I don't speak Portuguese but I did understand what you wrote. LOL!

[Swamp Rat]

90. I knew you would.

;) beijos :*

[Xenotime]

20. Even that's too high. Anything over $100,000 would be best.

Anythign above that and people begin to get even greedier.

[Cleita]

30. It used to be over $3,000,000. It kept the CEOs from getting hugh

salaries while they run their companies into the ground like today. As I said in another post, usually they ended up paying 30% not 90% after the loopholes, but the loopholes forced them to use their money in ways that benefited social programs like donations to charities and the arts and education, like endowments to museums, colleges etc.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. Please explain where you got the $3M number

I've been tracking tax policy since the late 60s and do not recall it being a magic number.

[Cleita]

50. See my post below and if I'm wrong write Thom Hartmann a letter.

On edit: Here is an article about it. He did say it would be three to four million in today's dollars. I guess I didn't hear that part of it, but I wasn't wrong.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/06/3003

[ProgressiveProfessor]

58. Hartmann was very selective with his facts and his conclusions were predetermined

Then again, that's his job, so I don't hold it against him, I just check on what says if it matters to me. You too should do some due diligence before you run with things just on his words.

[Cleita]

60. Well I trust him more with his facts than I do you.

Also, since I lived and worked in those days, I know things worked better. I'm not saying it was just the tax system only but it contributed to the fact that we had a large middle class and good paying jobs back then. Also, we had no homeless back then, just a few drunkards who liked it that way, and relied on the skid row missions to get by. Even the poor had welfare to fall back on in bad times, which those taxes paid for, and homes to live in.

[cali]

33. that's insane. literally.

[Xenotime]

35. Not insane..Fair is the word

[cali]

43. lol. fair? fair? you actually think it's fair to tax someone making $100,000

a year at a 90% rate? Or is it Swamp Rat's 99.9% rate that you think should be imposed? Fucking insane.

[hack89]

45. A working couple can earn more than that

if my wife and I work our asses off to care for our elderly parents, educate our kids and still have a decent retirement, how is that unfair?

[cali]

49. huh? how can anyone save if they earn $100,000 a year and are taxed

at a 90% rate? Please explain.

[hack89]

52. I am on your side

I am question the idea that it is fair to tax income over 100K at 90 percent.

[tabbycat31]

72. ditto

it's all relative to the cost of living. 100K in NYC or California does not get you very far, whereas in rural Kansas you could live like a king.

[PassingFair]

57. Taxed at 90% rate for any income OVER 100,000.00

That's the way it works,
but you knew that, right?

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. So then the $400,000 salary that President Obama makes means he'll net $130,000

Is that about right? We'll endorse his taxation at 90% on anything above the $100,000 you specify, and take $270,000 for taxes.

Hey, he doesn't need it, no one does.

[Statistical]

174. So you are for 90% taxes on some of the middle class

Cost of living does varr a lot depending on location.

Many 2 earner incomes in high cost of living locations like NYC, or Hawaii would be crippled by your punitive tax.

I guess as long as it doesn't affect you then it is ok.

[kath]

68. Oh, please, yet another person who doesn't understand the concept of MARGINAL tax rates.

Oy.
:banghead:

look it up.

[hack89]

78. The point is that 100K is way too low as a cut off.

a married couple can easily exceed that with some hard work - why should they be penalized for that effort? What is wrong with that?

[kath]

83. true - the cut-off proposed here is way too low.

But it's pathetic how few people understand how our taxation works - it ain't rocket science to be able to grasp the concept of marginal tax rates.

[JHB]

123. self delete

got posts crossed

[slay]

51. SOME people on this very board are SUPER rich and will do ANYTHING to stay that way

most likely like the person you are replying to. i have her on ignore if it's the person i think it is (which i'm sure it is - she's rich and ALWAYS defends the rich)

[Joe the Revelator]

86. Fair? You need to check with webster on that, because you're using strange definitions.

[mamaleah]

98. Fair?

Fair to bust down the salary of say....a neurosurgeon to that of someone....not working basically? or a part time barista at Starbucks?

Yeah...that would be great. Way to inspire people to NOT strive for success. Or to find even better ways to hide their money. Unless you want a fascist state that knows what everyone is doing all the time.

[Wednesdays]

129. The only measure of "success" is making megamillions?

Also, aren't there neurosurgeons in Europe? Once that's answered, how much money do they make?

[DFW]

143. I can provide one figure

At the University clinic of Essen, a typical neurosurgeon nets 8400 euros a month.

Note: nets. That's about a gross salary of (at €1=$1.38) of $347,760 and taxed at
about 60% which is about as high as you get in Germany.

Also, Germans have education and health care paid for. Of course, the cost of living
is higher in Germany, too. Food, housing, etc. Like in the USA, it's the bankers and
the private entrepreneurs who make the big bucks.

[guardian]

128. What if YOUR definition of fair is different than mine?

Are you going to force you definition on me? Or should I force my definition on you?

[Wednesdays]

131. How much money do you make in a year?

Now divide the amount of a Fortune 500 CEO by that number ($10 million). Does the CEO work that many times as hard as you?

[guardian]

132. How many times harder does

an actor work than a grip or caterer?

How many times harder does David Beckham work than a groundskeeper?

[guardian]

134. Let's divide

the amount that Madonna makes on tour by the number of roadies. Give everyone an equal share (including Madonna). Is that fair to you?

[snooper2]

116. How about everyone gets the same amount of money, that make you happy?

So when I worked at McDonalds at 16 I could have made $50,000 a year...

And now 20 years later working my way up to a Telecomunications Engineer make the same $50,000 a year...


stupid stupid stupid...

[proteus_lives]

80. So people should be punished for being successful?

I don't get it.

[Swamp Rat]

85. Of course you "don't get it."

[proteus_lives]

88. Ok......

:shrug:

[Joe the Revelator]

89. Instead of working for change, some around here and in the party would be content with punishing

those who are successful. Luckily, their the lunatic fringe/

[Swamp Rat]

93. LOL!!1

:D

[Joe the Revelator]

94. Another circa 1996 Paint Masterpiece by swamprat

shocking.

[Swamp Rat]

100. LOLOL!!!

You are not a member of 'the club', and you never will be... of course, neither will I.

[Cleita]

102. In this world, criticism from one artist about another is usually acceptable.

I haven't seen any of your work. So where do you get your authority from?

[noiretextatique]

118. what is "successful" about an heiress

who inherited her granddaddy's money? rich doesn't necessarily mean successful, or deserving, or earned.

[proteus_lives]

140. So people shouldn't have a choice about the money they make?

If I make a lot of money, I shouldn't be able to leave it to my children or grandchildren?

[noiretextatique]

146. why are you replying to my post?

my post said: it's wrong to assume that rich people are successful.
inheriting money doesn't mean you are successful.

[LAGC]

120. "Success" comes at the expense of others.

Time to give BACK to the people!

[proteus_lives]

139. All success?

So if I invent a product and make millions of dollars I don't deserve and shouldn't get that money? Or I spend 20 years building up a business and make six figures a year, I shouldn't get that money? Or I inherit a bundle from my family, I don't get that and people shouldn't be able to choose how they distribute their assets?

[devilgrrl]

150. Oooooh! You make 6 figures!!!! You're SUPER WEALTHY!!!!!!

Keep telling yourself that.

[proteus_lives]

151. Ha! I wish!

It was just an example.

[CBR]

142. $100,000 is way too low. If and when I get my Ph.D., my

husband (preschool teacher)and I will make more than $100,000. A poor black kid from Lynchburg, VA (husband) and a poor kid born to a 15 year old mother in southern WV (me). We have worked pretty hard for it.

[Cleita]

144. It wouldn't be that. The cut off would be around $4,000,000.

I don't think either you nor your husband will reach that figure unless you start investing and making income off those investments that exceed that figure, but I'm sure you won't make it in wages unless you become a hedge fund manager or something equally as lucrative.

[spanone]

163. what a pantload

[angstlessk]

3. along with tax incentives that investing in USA will reduce their tax burden

there must be loopholes the encourage them to keep the funds here in the US, as there were when the brackets were 70-80-90 percent.

[Cleita]

10. That's a given, but they will still have to pay enough to make it worthwhile. n/t

[DJ13]

4. I agree, then only give tax breaks for investing here in the US

Thats why our manufacturing base had it highest growth during the same period as those high taxes were in effect.

Its time to bring back those incentives to help rebuild our country.

[Cleita]

12. Agreed. That needs to be done too. n/t

[leftstreet]

6. Or, just not have 'super wealthy' people n/t

[Cleita]

9. This is how they do it in Sweden, with progressive taxation so that there

are fewer rich people and no really poor people.

[Veruca Salt]

11. +1

:thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

13. Yup. I think 90% is about right for the top tier income tax. 98% for the top estate tax.

:shrug:

Argument: "But they'll leave the U.S.!!"
Response: "Good!"

[Cleita]

15. Yes, there is a nice Libertarian paradise they can go to

called Somalia.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Way too easy under the current tax system to avoid either

and no one is willing to fundamentally revamp the system

[scrinmaster]

64. 35% of 3,000,000 is more than 98% of 0.

How will drastically reducing the amount of taxes taken in help anything?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. You confuse wealth with income

Today we tax income and some wealth (property taxes mostly). WHen I grew up I knew a multimillionaire widow, who had no W-2 income. She collected her husbands retirement and social security and owned a huge amount of property. With a good accountant she and her children lived very well. Outside of property tax on the commercial property she owned, she paid practically nothing. Sky high tax rates of the day, never touched her.

IN that same time frame other US citizens moved their wealth out of the US, declared non-US residency (no State taxes) and hid much of the income they made overseas. History will repeat itself and it will be perfectly legal.

The real issue is a tax system that is so complex no one fully understands it. It we were to dramatically simplify it, eliminating the existing complexity, it would start to address that problem

[Cleita]

17. No I'm not but there is gobs of income these people are making too that

needs taxing. Maybe the five million dollar necklace would be less affordable. It worked in Eisenhower's administration and yes, I would love to go after wealth too like property taxes for extra homes, extra bedrooms and baths in the primary mansion home, and transaction taxes on buying and selling wealth, etc., etc..

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. They choose to take it as income and spend it due to the current tax structure

If the rules change, the behavior will change with little increase in tax revenue. That is clear from the past.

[Cleita]

23. One thing you will see, and I don't think you can deny this, is that there

will be a great reduction in the ridiculous salaries top executives are getting now even while they run their companies into the ground. Back before the high tax rates were rolled back, a million dollars a year was the most any exec would get, because they didn't want to pay the huge taxes even with the allowed deductions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. The compensation will morph into untaxable areas

[Cleita]

27. Of course it will, but they will probably have to keep their asset

acquisitions here and not in an unmarked account in the Cayman Islands.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. I watched what went on the last time the pedulum swung that way...it was useless and even damaging

We need to come up with a system that is transparent and encourages investing and generating income within this country by everyone, including the very wealthy and those with high incomes.

The current tax system is a black hole that the legislature can not manage and change effectively. There is a massive tax avoidance industry that feeds off the mess the tax system is in and adds nothing to the GNP or the lives of our people. It really has to go before we try and tack more on to it, lest history repeat itself.

[Cleita]

38. I don't disagree with you but as a social democrat I also am for

redistributing wealth like the Scandanavians do too.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Sweden does a good job on W-2 income but has a much harder time with wealth

Also within the EU, capital is very mobile, so the Swedish government is careful with how hard they press. Should the big EU supporters get their way eventually tax rates will tend to level across Europe and both the Swedish (high tax) and Irish (low tax) approaches will be eliminated

[SalviaBlue]

18. Yes. I agree.

[stray cat]

19. I would just like to keep the estate tax and have no loop holes

I don't want my income tax at 90% nor do you - so I just want them to pay a fair rate.

[Cleita]

26. The way it worked was you paid after the first $3,000,000 in income and

honestly that is a fair rate. Rich people use more of the commons than we do, so they should pay more. If a mansion catches on fire, it takes more firemen and resources than the ordinary two bedroom bungalow. In every way they use more and they aren't paying for it. Tax loopholes realistically keep the rate around 30% that they actually pay. The loopholes for charity and other expenses make the rich channel their money into entities that will have a real trickle down effect.

[w4rma]

28. Exactly. (nt)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. You continue to interchange wealth with income

In your example, the services are paid out of property taxes, and the big homes and large buildings pay more than the two bedroom bungalow in your example (ignoring Prop 13 effects in CA). In fact, they tend to pay more than they consume in that scenario. However, all of that is based on wealth/value of assets, not income.

I do not recall $3M in income as a major break point. Where are you getting that from?

[Cleita]

46. Thom Hartmann mentioned that on his radio program and he's seldom

wrong. I also, remember the progressive scale when it was in effect. There were various breaking points up to the highest rate and I don't remember exactly which but it was high and back then $3,000,000 was worth a lot more than today. Most middle class men broke at 30% but paid less of course just like the millionaires did by the time they factored in all the deductibles. Also, back then you could claim all your medical expenses which was a big help especially for the working poor. What is hurting is all the donations that the rich and almost rich made to the arts, education and charities for the tax breaks.

[Cleita]

53. Here's an article Thom Hartmann wrote about it in case you missed my

edit on another post:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/06/3003

[anonymous171]

22. I'll second that!

[Stevepol]

25. K&R!

[ixion]

29. it doesn't work

all it does is piss off those who make the money, and redistribute the wealth to a different subset.

It doesn't fix the problem, which is greed.

[Cleita]

32. You are never going to fix greed unless you can convince them that there

really is a Hell they are going to in the afterlife if they don't cut it out.

[Fire1]

37. BINGO!!!! n/t

[NashVegas]

125. Hmmm ... Too Bad We're All So Hostile to Religion Here

Seems a bit hard to swallow, eh?

[anonymous171]

40. You can't fix that problem, so don't even try. Just tax the shit out of them to compensate for it.

[ixion]

55. again: all that will do is make a different group of people wealthy

while the rest of us pay the way.

It also removes incentive. Without incentive, you've got a whole lotta nothin'.

[Wednesdays]

133. Really. Ya gotta let the billionaires keep their billions

...or there's no incentive for the ghetto-dwellers to get off their asses. :eyes:

[ixion]

148. take away money from one billionaire, and all you do is create another

is the history of the Soviet Union and Modern China not enough? I mean, what more evidence do you need?

[marmar]

42. Agreed......

Multibillionaires will just have to learn to live on a few hundred million.

[KG]

48. works for me. worked for america at one time.

[slay]

54. I totally agree

We ALLOW them to get that rich. They have raped the planet of resources, and polluted the hell out of it. Of course they should be paying HUGE taxes. The super rich are only that way because we have allowed it to happen. While millions go hungry and homeless.

[LuckyLib]

56. We don't see the really obscene wealth in this country. Madoff's victims were a

slice of the big moneyed group. The really wealthy are very quiet about their multiple dwellings, incredible holdings, and spending sprees. Best not to rouse the sleeping masses. The very rich? -- tax their asses off. Nobody needs or deserves that much money.

[ecstatic]

59. What about middle and lower income people who waste money

on unnecessary material things? Who are you to decide what someone should spend money on?

[Malikshah]

62. Wow-- red herring much. Get a frikkin grip on reality.

Even going back to Clinton era tax rates would benefit the economy. No need to go back to Depression era.

Jeez-- life is too short for crap.

Get a grip.

[Cleita]

63. Really, do they wear an outfit once before they throw it out?

I don't know of anyone who does that. How many five million dollar necklaces do middle and lower income people waste money on? Frankly, I don't care what people spend their money on. I just think it's a sin to have so much money in a world that the majority of people are hurting in that I think they should pay more taxes. Also, rich people use more of the commons than we do. It's a fact. Yet, it's the lower and middle income people who are carrying most of the burden of keeping municipalities and countries running.

[ecstatic]

67. I don't care how many times they wear an outfit.

And neither should you.

[Cleita]

69. I have a right to care when they aren't paying their fair share of taxes.

Once the ninety percent rate comes back and they will really only pay 30%, then they can flaunt their wealth all they want to, but not before then.

[anonymous171]

74. Income is not spent. Income is "earned" . nt

[FailureToCommunicate]

130. Ahhh the 'welfare queen' problem. (Well, psttt, it was made up by Lee Atwater) Not a

bit of it was true, though it sure fit a profile of preconception with gazillions of Reagan voters.

[madrchsod]

61. they used to invest in the public good because of taxation

but now they really do`t have to. redemption is just a quaint term to today`s super wealthy

[Cleita]

66. Yes, as I pointed out before, they would invest in the arts, education

and charities because of the tax benefits. Now many of these entities like PBS for instance who used to get their funding from endowments like that have to rely on corporate sponsorship, which is influencing their content. The pull toward RW bias is noticeable.

[Kaleva]

70. Adjusting for today's dollars

The floor for the highest tax bracket of 91% back in 1955 was $400,000.00 which equates to about $32,000,000.00 in today's dollars. The ceiling for the lowest tax bracket of 20% back in 1955 was $4,000.00 which equates to about $32,000.00 in today's dollars.

I'm all for returning to the old tax brackets and rescinding the Bush tax cuts but I don't think there's that many people in the US who bring home the equivalent of a weekly paycheck of $615,000.00. Maybe I'll spend some time googling for such info.

[Cleita]

71. Here's a video that states the net worth of the 400 richest Americans

is twenty billion dollars. I think there is enough income from that to tax and make it worthwhile. Of course we would be taxing far more that 400 billionaires.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x324491

[Kaleva]

73. Reforming the Alternative Minimum Tax ought to be a priority...

too. It needs to be adjusted for inflation and include income from dividends and investment gains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax

[A HERETIC I AM]

76. Twenty Billion? That is so far off as to be laughable. Bill Gates alone is worth 3 times that.

Try 1.57 Trillion.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2008-09-17-forbes-richest-americans_N.htm

[Cleita]

77. Better yet. n/t

[chicago legal pro]

79. That is net worth, not their income.

We tax on income not net worth.

[A HERETIC I AM]

84. Cleita posted a link to a video that claimed the "Net Worth" of the 400 richest Americans..

was $20 billion. She mentioned net worth, not income.

I just pointed out that the twenty billion figure was off by a large margin.

And there are plenty of taxes on things other than income. We tax capital gains, for instance.

[Generic Other]

103. I think I messed up my number

i saw 105 billion somewhere else. i was way off!

[chicago legal pro]

114. The income tax is just applied to income.

Capital gains are income. It is the increase in the value of something after it is sold. Before it is sold it would be part of net worth.

[A HERETIC I AM]

149. Thanks for the tip.

[onenote]

122. i think your numbers are off, but your point is well taken

I think in $400,000 in the 1951 - 1963 period (when the marginal rate was 91 percent) would be around $3 million (in taxable income), not $30 million.

But your point is correct -- not a lot of people were paying the marginal rate back then and not a lot would be paying it today if it was adjusted to reflect current dollars. Only around two-tenths of one percent of all taxpayers in 2005 (the last year I could find data) had adjusted gross income over $1 million. Jump it up to $3 million and make it "taxable income" rather than adjusted gross and the number of taxpayers affected is going to drop even more.

[Kaleva]

145. Thank you for correcting my mistake on the numbers!

[proteus_lives]

81. Ah, horseshit.

You're just mad at these examples. Define "super-wealthy" please.

[Cleita]

82. I thought I just did or is excessive self-indulgence and the means to do it

not sufficient?

[proteus_lives]

91. What law are they breaking?

I do think it's a disgusting show of wealth but if they're not breaking any laws, what of it?

What right do I or you have to tell them what to do with their money?

[Cleita]

96. I'm not telling them anything. I am telling our lawmakers to make sure

they pay taxes for their excesses. Otherwise I don't mind.

[proteus_lives]

99. I agree with you there.

No one is above the law. (Or at least they shouldn't be.)

[Joe the Revelator]

92. It sounds like jealousy to me

They have the right to do with there money as they please as long as no laws are broken. Think of all the ship builders and dress makers their spending keeps employed.

Mind your own affairs instead of those around you.

[Cleita]

95. Not enough ship builders and dressmakers. When little people have

money jingling in their pockets so much more gets bought in the way of dresses and let's say little boats for fishing.

[Joe the Revelator]

158. That's sillly

Why should the rich be kept from getting dresses and boats because I can't afford them right now? That, my friend, is jealousy.

[Cleita]

160. You created that remark out of whole cloth.

It doesn't even make sense in context to the OP and unless you are a mind reader you couldn't possibly know what my feelings are about the matter. What I posited is demand side economics that is opposite to the supply side economics that we presently practice and that brings us huge economic inequalities.

[nolabels]

87. The problem isn't so much of them being wealthy

It's more of the problem of how the cream is being funneled from the poor to rich. Things are set up to make the poor more so. We are on a uneven keel where peoples wealth is more important that what they contribute. It will be a long road to change that when so much of it has been inculcated into many for a ownership / me generational thinking.

[Cleita]

105. None of us care about the wealthy being who they are. What we do care

about is when they get more privilege than the rest of us. This means that they are not paying for stuff that we have to. I will give you an example of this. As a renter I lived in neighborhoods where parking was restricted on street cleaning days. Well most of us, being working class had an extra car in order to get to work, so one of us, let's say a couple with child in an apartment, but both working, had to park in the street. So on street cleaning day, if you didn't move the car at five or six in the morning, you got a ten dollar ticket. This was every week. Of course on those days the parking wars got rather nasty. At one time I rented a room from a rather wealthy friend in a tony neighborhood that was actually only a few miles away from the apartment conclave and in the same city. Even though there were street cleaning days, there were no parking restrictions. I parked my car on the street because my friend parked hers in her driveway. There were no laws saying I couldn't park in the street on street cleaning days. The sweeper just went around me and about several other cars and vehicles parked on that street.

Please tell me there is no nickel and dimeing the poor and working class here.

[nolabels]

154. That's is exactly what i was getting on about

The moneyed position they hold and have been set up through successions of generations that grease the skids for all they do. Most of the population has had their minds ingrained that people with the most wealth are the best and most happy. Little girls that have been tranced into needing to be the princess of the storied castle on the hill and lately little boys with sports mega-stars and their multi-million dollar salaries and all their toys.

How they start with the young on the issues of school districts in California is another good one. Though too, without a doubt there are probably tens of thousands other examples how people with wealth and their cadre get expedited preferential services and goods that don't reflect their true cost for society. The wealthy are not the problem though, it's the rest of us who except that's how things are. We, the majority are the ones that have to change our minds.

[Greyhound]

104. K&R, and a 98% estate tax @ $3M.

This would effectively wipe out the American ruling class in one generation as well as restoring much of the economic strength that made us what we were.

Next year we take on the military...:evilgrin:
:kick: & R

[progressoid]

106. Yes, but we also have to close the myriad loopholes that have been created in the late 30 years.

[harun]

107. Most of the super wealthy don't have income. They make money

through capital gains or just have the lot of money sitting there in some form of investment.

If someone has 100 million dollars in the bank at the start of the year, and doesn't work, the only taxes they would pay would be on interest income which is taxed at a different rate than say wage income on someone making minimum wage.

The whole system should be redone but with the super wealthy owning and running congress (esp. the Senate), the system will stay the way it is because it is pro-wealth.

[Cleita]

108. Actually they do or they wouldn't have money to live off of. They make

income from their investments, for instance Donald Trump collects rents as a real estate mogul and that is considered income. Interest and dividends from investments is considered income.

[harun]

110. Your missing my point, here is a different example...

Someone has 100 million dollars sitting in their bedroom, through out the year they don't work, they make no wages, and they earn no interest. Any time they need money to pay for things they walk in to their bedroom and take out what they need. How much do they have to pay in income taxes? Of course, 0.

Point is we tax income and not wealth.

It may seem like a foreign concept to tax wealth instead, but it actually isn't. It is the foundation of Islamic Finance which was practiced in many areas for well over a 1000 years. The tax on wealth goes to the poor.

[Cleita]

111. Well for one thing only a few eccentrics keep their capital in a mattress.

It's frowned upon in money circles to spend your principal unless it's for an investment like property you might renovate and sell for a profit. Everyone invests and lives on the income from those investments. Profits are also considered income, so if you make a profit on the property you resell, you pay taxes on it. I would love to tax wealth and we should be but taxing income on these rich people with billions in net worth would bring in lots of revenue too if we raise the tax percentage taken from income.

[NashVegas]

126. You Confuse "Income" With "Labor Income"

Even the income of your income is still income.

[LeftHandPath]

109. I like this idea...

I've stated for a while now we need punitive tax rates while the country is in debt or at war.

20 times median income = $1MM

90% tax rate for all incomes, and capital gains over $1MM.

This creates a great incentive to get the country out of debt, and keep us out of war.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rockholm]

115. Stupid post. Stupid suggestion.

[Wednesdays]

135. Because....?

:shrug:

[Rockholm]

147. Why on earth would anyone in the US advocate 90% tax?

[devilgrrl]

155. It was at 92% back in those FABULOUS 50's!!!!

Why the fuck not?

[Rockholm]

159. Tell you what, I will keep my money, thank you.

I will enjoy whatever tax bracket I am currently in.

[devilgrrl]

162. Yeah, I bet you're just rolling in it too!

[Rockholm]

172. Absolutely.

[KansDem]

117. For decades we've been told how more money for the wealthy means a better life for the rest of us...

We were told that "trickle down" economics would result in the wealthy having more money to invest in this country. BULLSHIT!!!

The wealthy were given the chance and they fucked-up BIG TIME!!! Not only did they fuck up the economy, they squirreled away their ill-gotten swag in secret, off shore accounts. FUCKING TAX CHEATS!!!

Bring back the 90% tax rate for the super wealthy. We, THE PEOPLE, will decide how it will benefit society and the country, not them. They had their chance and the blew it!

[guardian]

127. Let's make it really fair

and tax 100% of all income starting at the first dollar. Make it illegal to own currency of any kind in any amount. And eliminate private ownership of all property. "We, THE PEOPLE, will decide how it will benefit society and the country"

[KansDem]

138. You forgot the "sarcasm" smilie...

But you'll have to admit, the super wealthy fucked up BIG TIME!!! They were given the opportunity via Reaganism to use their newly-found wealth gleaned from GOP tax-cuts to benefit the country by investing. However, they chose not to and stashed their swag away in secret accounts. Reaganism is dead! Now we have a huge debt to repay and we should do so on the backs of the super wealthy!.

[duhneece]

119. Amen

Now we have to have a discussion about just how much is 'super wealthy.'

[OneBlueSky]

121. "Only little people pay taxes." . . . Leona Helmsley . . .

I love the argument that people should be able to keep whatever they manage to earn . . . they're the ones who worked for it, after all, so they should be entitled to the fruits of their labor . . . it shouldn't be taxed to pay for benefits for those who don't have the smarts or the education or the initiative or the contacts or the good looks or the thievery to rake in millions and millions of greenbacks . . .

they never seem to be able to grasp that their "earning" was helped along by an awful lot of people and systems that are paid for by taxes . . . the roads and railroads on which they ship their goods, the schools that educate their workers (at least well enough to do the menial tasks), the Postal Service that carries their mail, the utilities that bring water and electricity and heat into their buildings (though most of them are now privatized), etc. . . without all of these people and systems, they couldn't make their millions, so after a certain amount, they should be taxed heavily to help support same . . .

there's also much to be said for tying the maximize income of executives to the income of the lowest paid employee in the company . . . without the people who actually do the work, these millionaires couldn't survive, much less prosper . . . and paying them thousands of times what the lowly janitor receives is immoral and unethical -- and it should be illegal . . .

those kinds of discrepencies in income foster a caste system in which the mega-rich can do whatever they damn well please with no fear of real consequences . . . but if the janitor is caught smoking a joint, or going home with a company pen in his pocket, watch out! . . . the law's gonna getcha! . . .

[SammyWinstonJack]

124. No argument from me. Time for the clueless super wealthy to pony up.

[anonymous171]

136. Geez, when did all these libertarian types show up?

I can't believe the amount of resistance OP's proposal is getting

[devilgrrl]

156. That's the result of having Supply Side bullshit fed to many the past 30 years.

Not matter how much it has failed Failed FAILED!!!! They keep thinking that it's just not being done correctly.

:crazy:

[FailureToCommunicate]

137. Raise it from where it is, but make the wealth actually PAY the taxes they DO owe:

Even as taxes were LOWERED on the wealthy over that last few decades, the enforcement by the IRS on collecting what WAS due DEcreased!!!

http://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/newfindings/v09/#figure5


And tax cheat corporations are even getting taxpayer bailout money!
link
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/us/politics/20tax.html

[KoKo]

152. K&R...

[Dave From Canada]

153. Yes, raise income tax to 90%, and drive businesses and entrepreneurs to Canada! Yay.

[Kaleva]

157. That didn't happen in the 50's.

[Cleita]

161. Yes and it was a period of economic prosperity for just about everyone as

contrary today, where only a small subset of extremely wealthy billionaires can enjoy economic prosperity.

[FailureToCommunicate]

167. Just curious, how is the income tax structured in Canada? And do wealthy cheat there also?

[SKKY]

164. I totally disagree. Bad policy...

...let them pay their fair share, just as I and almost everyone else does. I don't begrudge someone because of their wealth..

[FailureToCommunicate]

166. "...let them pay their fair share" That's a lot of the problem: they DON'T

Even as low as it's been lowered for the wealthy...

see post above (#137) with links

[SKKY]

168. But, I don't think 85% or more, as some of the posters are suggesting...

...is fair either. It's ridiculous.

[FailureToCommunicate]

169. And will never happen. But serfs can dream, can't they?

[deaniac21]

171. The tax should be 100 % for all and then each individual

should petition the government for what they need.

[geek_sabre]

175. srsly?

[deaniac21]

177. Yes, to each in proportion to their need.

[Kaleva]

173. Call it the "Eisenhower Tax Reform Act of 2009"

Make it a little harder for the Republicans to attack it.

[FailureToCommunicate]

176. "Reagan Retro Revenue Reinstatement"