it's time for the rich to make some sacrifices for their country.

[Terra Alta]

There are millions of Americans who are suffering today -- people in poverty, over a million homeless and most don't know where their next meal is coming from. This includes many, many children, who go to bed hungry, not knowing where their next meal will come from. And those are the ones who have a bed to go to.

There is a solution for this, and that is for the wealthiest people in this country to start paying more taxes. They can afford it; they are multi-millionaires and billionaires who will never have to want for anything. Tax the richest 10% at 50%, and the richest 1% at 75%. They would hardly notice it. Of course, they may not be able to buy that second yacht they've been wanting, or their seventh mansion -- but what's more important, having yet another mansion or having a roof over the head of every man, woman and child, and three meals a day for every family? Paying taxes is patriotic. The rich need to start being more patriotic.

This goes for corporations, too. Companies like Wal-mart, Target, McDonald's, etc. need to start paying their employees a living wage. I work for Wal-mart, and have been for six years now. I get a raise every year but still make below $10 an hour. While Rob Walton, Lee Scott, Mike Duke, et al, make billions. Yet many of their employees struggle to make ends meet.

Jesus Christ told the rich to sell their possessions and give to the poor. Many Christians talk about Jesus coming back and setting up his earthly kingdom, well if that's true then he will rule as a socialist.

[Taverner]

1. TAX AT 90%!!!!

This is what we did in World War 2, and the rich happily obliged

[Terra Alta]

3. Well, we are technically at war.

Why not make the rich pay for it? They certainly aren't fighting in it.

[Taverner]

4. Yes - and even if we don't count our four wars we're having

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and North Korea (that one never ended, so...)

We are at a time when we need to spend our way out of this recession

I have no doubt that a National Recovery Act would do some serious good

[valerief]

8. The rich are benefitting from war. They won't sacrifice a penny to

"the unrich".

[Taverner]

12. Then take it

And if they don't want to pay, take everything they own

[valerief]

13. They control men with guns. Without men with guns, they'd have no power. nt

[Initech]

16. I think bonuses and luxury goods over $150,000 should be taxed 100%.

Certainly not houses but their second and third homes, boats, Bentleys, etc.

[Taverner]

23. How about vehicles for work?

Say trucks and trailers that house livestock?


----------------------

Then, before you answer, think that a Hummer is considered a truck

So are tour-buses, which some rich folk use as transportation

[Initech]

27. I don't think those things would qualify as luxury goods.

A Hummer and a tour bus certainly would.

[Taverner]

28. Then there must be a defined entry

Not a bad thing really, but if it is to be followed it must be specifically stated

[Initech]

33. How about non business or necessity related luxury items that cost over $150K?

[WinkyDink]

31. A Hummer is not a truck. And musicians' tour-buses are job-related. What's your point?

[Taverner]

34. According to the IRS, a Hummer is a truck

And tax wise, it is a truck

[former9thward]

35. I think all tax rates should be raised.

Taxing will only work if it is on everyone and everyone should pay income taxes. You mention WW II. During WW II the top tax rate (over a million a year) was 94%. But it was also 23% if you made $500 a year. I think we should go back to those rates in order to get everything in order.

[Taverner]

40. I agree

When I am working, I make more than most folks do. Granted, a lot of it pays for mortgage (I live in a $700K home, and no it's not a mansion. 2000 sq feet, with 6 feet of space between units.)

I want Prop 13 to be overturned. The Economist had a great article on why this should be so.

[former9thward]

42. I don't live in Cali but I have heard that Prop 13 would be very hard to get rid of.

There are a lot of people who would be driven from their homes if the property taxes would increase significantly. I don't know what the answer is there.

[Taverner]

43. Yes it will - California rules by public fiat

Which may sound good, almost like a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'

But what if the public has no clue what the hell it's doing?

If slavery were put to a referendum in the 1860s, it would have been kept

[Thunderstruck]

2. Rich don't do patriotism. Therefore, they are not willing to sacrifice one thin dime.

[Taverner]

6. They used to

Granted, they don't anymore

So fuck 'em - take all their shit

And if they complain, take more of their shit until they shut up

[Thunderstruck]

10. 1000% agree. And if that doesn't work, storm the fucking gates!

[Zax2me]

5. This would work short term

But the fact is wealthy people aren't the problem.
Our government is, spending more than they have, wasting what they do - not to mention participating in multiple wars that would be OVER if we just got out of places we have no business being in the first place.

[Taverner]

7. Short Term is the only way economists are thinking these days

So - if it works short term, then do it

[Terra Alta]

11. I agree that we need to end the wars

Not just the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the so-called "War on Drugs" too. That would save money that could better be used on the poor, too.

[Drale]

14. Wow except for the multiple war part

that sounds very much like tea bagger talk.

[SlimJimmy]

25. So, you don't think the government is spending more than it's taking in?

[Taverner]

29. No, no I don't

Or let me clarify that

It's not spending as much as it couldn't make

We need to raise taxes world wide

If it worked for FDR and Henry Wallace, it'll work for us

[SlimJimmy]

36. So, you think we can magically find 1.3 trillion more dollars per year? What fantasy land do you

live in? We need to do some cutting. It's just a matter of what to cut that separates the parties.

[Taverner]

39. Yes I can, its called "tax the corporations" until you make up the $1.3 trillion

And while we're at it, start shutting down those overseas military bases we don't need and don't use. Sell the land to real estate developers, and take the profits and fund the budget

I will say it again, we are not taxing people enough. And certainly we are not taxing the right people.

Corporations need the Government more than the Government needs them. If there were no government, there is no way they could do business, and they'd close shop in minutes.

[SlimJimmy]

46. Let's talk actual facts and not fantasy numbers ... okay.

If we took ALL of the wealth from those that make 250k or more, not tax - ALL of their wealth. And took ALL of the profit from all US corporations for one year. And took what we spend on the current three wars for one year. And cut the defense budget in half for one year. Then we would have *just* enough to cover the deficit for ONE year. Do you see how ludicrous your solution is? What would we do in year two? We can't tax or confiscate ourselves out of this problem. We MUST start cutting. We, as a country just don't have a choice in the matter.

1.3 trillion is 1000 billion plus 300 billion. And that's what we will be in the hole EACH year for at least ten years running if President Obama has his way. And that's not even taking a penny away from the US debt of nearly 15 trillion.

[Taverner]

49. I dunno where you get YOUR numbers, but I cite the GAO

You and your supply side nonsense have no place in an honest discussion of the deficit

Besides, deficit spending is how you get yourself out of a recession. Austerity programs just make things worse.

Read your Keynes, not Ayn Rand

[SlimJimmy]

52. You can't possibly be that stupid. The numbers I used are what they are.

100 billion a year for the wars, 400 billion for defense, 300 billion all wealth over 250k, 200 billion, profit from US companies. All comes to about 1.3 trillion. That's not supply side economics, it's simple addition - something we all learned in the third grade. Now, if YOU had actually read Keynes, (as I have) you would already know that he did NOT advocate stimulus spending using borrowed money. But, hey. Don't let the actual facts ever get in the way of a good clueless rant.

[Taverner]

56. "You can't possibly be that stupid" You cannot be such a fucking asshole

Fuck you - get out of my goddamn face

[SlimJimmy]

58. I might be an asshole, but you are dead wrong and factually incorrect. Yelling louder and more

often, doesn't make you right - it just makes you loud and obnoxious. Try some facts next time.

[Drale]

32. Yes but it sounds to me like he wants to cut

rather then gain more income by I don't know raising taxes on the rich. I maybe wrong but that just the "vive" I got from the post.

[SlimJimmy]

37. Okay. The rich can pay more, the corporations can pay more, and we can get out of these unnecessary

wars. But even then, we will still be running deficits. What then? Bottom line is that some cutting needs to be done.

[Drale]

38. So if there was no wars, the rich and corporations

are paying their fair share you still think there will be out of control deficits? I don't think there will be. There will always be a deficit, we have always had a deficit and that is not going to change.

[SlimJimmy]

47. Yes. See my answer in the previous reply. We can't even put a dent

in a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit doing what you suggest.

[Taverner]

51. Dude, Keynes was right, Rand was wrong

Deficit spending done right gets you out of a recession

Austerity programs just make things worse

We don't worship Ayn Rand here, friendo

[SlimJimmy]

53. Dude. Deficit spending using BORROWED money was

something that Keynes said NEVER to do. Maybe a little more reading is in your future?

[Taverner]

55. Absolutely wrong. He had no problem with deficit spending on credit

[SlimJimmy]

57. Wrong, he only advocated very, I repeat VERY temporary

deficit spending. You really should read what the man said before you try to say anything about him here. He said that government stimulus should be done from surplus money, and that deficit spending should be temporary at best or not done at all. You can start here for a better understanding of what happens concerning deficit stimulus and why it is not a good way to jump start the economy. Actually, I shouldn't of had to have this conversation. Look at what has NOT happened in the last 2 1/2 years. 800 billion in borrowed stimulus, QE1 and QE2. 1.3 trillion in deficits, nearly 15 trillion in current debt.

http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2844

[Taverner]

50. Why don't we gut the military?

Oh wait, we can't do that, what would Ronald Reagan's zombie think????

[DCBob]

9. Even if the rich dont care about those in poverty, which most dont..

some sacrifice to help the nation through this crisis would likely benefit themselves by keeping our economy from tanking again. I think many rich folks are so focused on their personal bottom line they fail to see the big picture.

[panader0]

15. I saw a show on TV last week (CBS Sunday Morning maybe)

where three very wealthy guys were interviewed and siad they wanted to pay higher taxes. They have on organization of many wealthy people, I forget the name. They said they wanted to do it for the good of the nation. Strange but true.

[Terra Alta]

19. Good for them.

Now if they can get the Koches, the Waltons, and other greedy billionaires and millionaires on board, we might have something going for us.

[MedleyMisty]

41. Hopefully they'll make that very public

Because there is a rage building, and when it explodes it might not be too nice about its targets.

[bluestate10]

44. They can simply give more to charities. That way, their money goes to social programs.

Giving to charities is the choice that I made with money that I am to get beck after the December tax changes. I am not waiting the the government to tax me. Plus, if the government tax me, much of the money will go to programs that I desire it not to go to. I prefer that my money go to food banks, jobs programs and education assistance programs. Sounds to me like those rich people are publicity grandstanding. There are plenty avenues for giving away money, many good charities are literally begging for money to meet needs of the less fortunate.

[taught_me_patience]

17. If paying taxes is patriotic

why don't we raise taxes on everybody? Clinton tax rates were higher for everybody, not just the rich.

[Terra Alta]

18. That might not be a bad idea.

I wouldn't mind paying a little more in taxes, if I knew the poor and sick were being taken care of.

[taught_me_patience]

20. That's great. I'm willing to pay more too

just not for useless war. However, I wonder how many DUers are willing to pay higher rates. There is a lot of talk about "raise the tax on the rich", which sounds like "I don't want to pay more... someone else should pay".

[theaocp]

26. ...and yet, you are and you do.

I'm absolutely willing to pay more taxes. Hell, in my town, we're about to have a vote to make sure we can keep our goddamn fire, police, and ambulance services! I could vote it down and pay more in my home insurance rates! Fuck! Of course, I'll be voting for the millage increase.

That being said, you can think whatever you want about what "raise the tax on the rich" sounds like, but it doesn't change the message: these rich fucks need to pay more. I'm not even interested in them paying "their fair share." I want them to PAY MORE. They enjoy the benefits of taxed societal services and can so afford to pay more for these same benefits giving them their "earned" riches. They don't like that? Fuck off and move somewhere else. I double-dog dare them. It's a fucking pile of shit that we cower in fear of their threats to "take their talents elsewhere." It's all horseshit and I'm calling it as such. :rant:

[bluestate10]

45. Why not just give the money directly to charities that mirror your social beliefs? nt

[rrneck]

21. I have some farva beans and a good Chianti. nt

[Sirveri]

22. Even if we raise their taxes they still won't be sacrificing.

Sacrificing is something you can only do if you have to make hard choices about what you're going to lose. Taxing the rich won't make them have to chose between anything, it'll just mean that their already bloated bank accounts don't get quite as large, not something I'd call a sacrifice.

[Turbineguy]

24. Well, yes. Afterall

we could do with an extra dogsbody on the yacht. Let's help out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU

[WinkyDink]

30. Let us not use the term "sacrifice" in vain. If the rich are still rich afterwards, there has been

no sacrifice.

It should just be termed "giving one's fair share to the country's welfare."

[BOG PERSON]

48. there was a time

when it was the working class that was not supposed to have a country, and the bourgeoisie imposed it on them in order to divide them! now it's the other way around.

[Oasis_]

54. The "bottom" 50% pay nearly zero federal taxes

I'm all for ending the wars and closing our military bases overseas, and as another poster noted, the "War on drugs" is a terribly expensive failure that should be abandoned. But the so-called "wealthy" pay nearly the entire tax burden. 47% of Americans pay zero.

As far as corporate taxation--they can, will and do pass it on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Taxing them at a higher clip also provides them a tremendous incentive to move operations overseas to countries with far "friendlier" business environments.

The government on all levels takes in more than enough revenue. We pay federal, state, local, property, sales etc.

This government has demonstrated absolutely zero ability to restrain in its spending--to the point of it and almost every single one of its programs being bankrupt--yet some feel the solution is to provide it with an even greater portion of its private citizen's wealth? How on earth can they possibly be trusted not to spend it?


Confiscating an even greater percentage of income is just not on the table, as a political issue, for me personally.

Oasis

[Elwood P Dowd]

59. This is total bullshit and nothing but repuke/corporate talking points.

Why do you people continue to pollute this board?

When our economy was booming and growing from the 1940s to the early 1980s corporations paid almost 30% of all federal taxes. Today they only pay 7%. Many of them, GE and Exxon are a couple of examples, pay nothing in federal income taxes. The richest paid effective tax rates of over 50%, and today only 16%. Take your BS elsewhere!

[Oasis_]

61. Please...

"You people",huh? I'm a Democrat and just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I should be silenced.

The level of competition during the time period you referenced was significantly less than exists today. US manufacturing dominated the world markets for the simple fact that we enjoyed the advantage of terribly inferior competition. China and India didn't even register on the worldwide economic radar, while much of Europe and Japan had a post war-rebuild to contend with that placed them years (actually decades in the case of Japan) behind.

Meanwhile, our government has spent us into near-economic oblivion and devalued our currency. Yet you wish to provide the government with even more revenue to wreak havoc? It will only serve to exacerbate the problem.

Do you debate the fact that close to 50% of tax payers (after rebates and credits) pay absolutely zero federal tax?

I've stated before that I'm all for ending the wars, slashing the massive defense budget by half, and closing our foreign military bases. But to ignore the economic realities and challenges of a global economy doesn't accomplish anything, Lack of understanding of the complexities associated seems to inevitably lead to a call of "raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations" when in reality they're just empty platitudes completely devoid of rational economic principle and understanding.

Oasis

[BzaDem]

60. Your rates are quite a bit unrealistic. Someone at the 90th percentile makes 75k/year. You think

they "wouldn't notice" if they paid 38k/year in taxes?

Similarly, a household at the 90th percentile makes 118k/year. They wouldn't notice if they paid 60k/year in taxes?

A family making 250k/year (98.5th percentile) wouldn't notice a 75% tax rate (a tax bill of 183k)? That would leave them with around 60k left over -- exactly the same amount left over as a family making 118k/year under your tax scheme.

We aren't talking about first yachts (let alone second yachts) here.