A fine example of where we could be headed if we don't wake up. Class war, indeed. But are we too apathetic and/or deeply ingrained in the belief that we'll make it just like Charlie Sheen and Lloyd Blankfein? Here's to hoping not.
21 comments:
daniel
said...
But they already do have our money, dude. So now what? Perhaps class war is inevitable.
The top one percent of this country. Because they own everything.
And one of them outbid you on something that you were going to buy? How exactly do they have your money - as opposed to money they earned, inherited or won at the track?
I mean hell, I get that the rich have money you want, I just don't understand how you all think that is your money. What is your claim to it?
William, see my post today in which I mention Whittle. Good point on the comments being disabled. It's sort of like James O'Keefe not allowing himself to be videotaped. It speaks volumes about their character and their level of confidence in their ideology. There's another C word in there...courage....yeah, that's it. Again, see my post today about all of this.
Juris, done coddling your beliefs. Time to get with the program and come up with some new ideas. I know I'm not right about all of mine. But then again, I have ideas, not beliefs.
"How exactly do they have your money - as opposed to money they earned, inherited or won at the track?"
Seriously, are you really that dense? They have our money because they own everything and we have no choice but to buy it. I'm talking about basic goods here like gas, food, heat and electricity. They can charge us whatever they want and because they are essential, we have to pay. Any time someone in DC gets in their way and maybe wants to regulate something a little more, they pay bitches like Rush Limbaugh to go on the air and tell everyone that that person is Hitler because they want a high speed train or some other new and innovative idea that would help save on the cost of gas.
They also took my money twice when they gambled away my investments and then begged daddy for a bail out. Now they want daddy to go away so they can go back to being piggies again and get their rocks off at the casino known as Wall Street.
Funny M - you can't answer some simple questions (without exposing yourself for what you are) and then complain about my "beliefs". Amazing how just a few simple questions so confound you and the rest of this crowd.
They have our money because they own everything and we have no choice but to buy it.
Ah, some testifyin' from the choir of the Leftboro Baptist Church - preach it brother, PREACH IT!
So jurisdiction, what has George Soros made you buy that ripped you off and made him richer and you poorer (and obviously dumber)? If not Soros, how about Buffett or Jobs or Gates? I guess you must hate John Kerry, being married into the Heinz family fortune (and you having no choice but to slather the ketchup onto your fries). Poor slave.
Yup. He's a helpless Pavlovian drone who's programmed by TV ads to go buy those burgers and fries in the first place. He wants Big Mommy to take of him.
I'm sorry, Anonymous, but I watched the video and it's nothing but read meat for angry and irrational people. No one here is advocating anything close to eating the rich.
William, you seem like a reasonable fellow, perhaps you can tell us what the fair share is that the top 10% of income earners should pay (of the total tax burden). Should they be coughing up 30%, 50%, 70%... 90% of total income tax receipts?
Thanks william but that wasn't the quesion I asked you. Did you not understand the question? I asked what is the fair share that the rich should be paying as a percent of total income taxes collected?
Also, how much additional revenue do you think a 39.5 vs 35% top tax bracket is going to raise? I would suspect that the actual additional revenue is pretty small - so what exactly is the point? Is the symbolic value what is most important?
My mistake. The latest figures I saw were 38 percent in 2008, down from 40 percent in 2007. Are there any figures for 2009 yet? The drop off makes sense to me given that was a recession year. Given these numbers, I don't think there is a set number you can choose and say this is it. It depends on how much money they make. In 2009 and 2010, it's clear that the rich have made more money than ever before but I don't know how much they paid in tax. I say their fair share should be more if they make more. We'd have to look at income growth, right?
I don't know how much revenue the added tax would raise. I simply understand that we can't reduce the deficit by spending cuts only. When the higher tax rate was in place, we managed our budget more effectively. I think you will agree that taxes are lower now than they ever have been. That's a problem given what we have to spend money on in terms of defense, social security, medicare and other programs. I have no problem with those programs being restructured and take issue with Democrats and Republicans who treat them like sacred cows. As President Obama says, everything is on the table including taxes.
That was the share for the top 1%. The top 10% are paying about 75% - and that is the level where the top rate is in effect. So, you think that is the fair share - that 1% should pay over a third of the total and the 10% should pay three-quarters of the total bill? It is fair for the remaining 90% of taxpayers to only fund 1/4 of the govt.
I think you will agree that taxes are lower now than they ever have been.
Well, not actually. Rates were much lower pre WWII. Then they were much higher after - until Kennedy pushed through a tax cut, then they crept upwards again. As I recall Reagan cut the top rate to 28%. That didn't seem to stop the growth of the federal govt though did it?
The problem here is that you are looking at it in a very narrow way. I'll explain more tomorrow but simply examining share of revenue from taxes makes no sense without looking at other factors.
21 comments:
But they already do have our money, dude. So now what? Perhaps class war is inevitable.
But they already do have our money, dude.
Who has your money and how did s/he get it? Either you can substantiate this [with specifics], or you are just pure full of shit.
The top one percent of this country. Because they own everything.
The top one percent of this country. Because they own everything.
And one of them outbid you on something that you were going to buy? How exactly do they have your money - as opposed to money they earned, inherited or won at the track?
I mean hell, I get that the rich have money you want, I just don't understand how you all think that is your money. What is your claim to it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
Eat the rich!
I'm afraid I don't understand the "Eat the Rich" phrase. I think it's also very telling that comments are disabled for that video.
Did you watch the video William? The comments would probably contain phrases like "kill Bill!" "find out where Bill lives and protest on his lawn!"
Use your imagination.
Still no one explaining how they have your (or my) money. Talk about a dog whistle!
And I get criticized for pointing out that you are all practitioners of the politics of envy?
William, see my post today in which I mention Whittle. Good point on the comments being disabled. It's sort of like James O'Keefe not allowing himself to be videotaped. It speaks volumes about their character and their level of confidence in their ideology. There's another C word in there...courage....yeah, that's it. Again, see my post today about all of this.
Juris, done coddling your beliefs. Time to get with the program and come up with some new ideas. I know I'm not right about all of mine. But then again, I have ideas, not beliefs.
"How exactly do they have your money - as opposed to money they earned, inherited or won at the track?"
Seriously, are you really that dense? They have our money because they own everything and we have no choice but to buy it. I'm talking about basic goods here like gas, food, heat and electricity. They can charge us whatever they want and because they are essential, we have to pay. Any time someone in DC gets in their way and maybe wants to regulate something a little more, they pay bitches like Rush Limbaugh to go on the air and tell everyone that that person is Hitler because they want a high speed train or some other new and innovative idea that would help save on the cost of gas.
They also took my money twice when they gambled away my investments and then begged daddy for a bail out. Now they want daddy to go away so they can go back to being piggies again and get their rocks off at the casino known as Wall Street.
In keeping with Mark's desire for less anonymity, I am now naming myself Jurisdiction. The third comment and tenth comment in this thread are mine.
Juris, done coddling your beliefs.
Funny M - you can't answer some simple questions (without exposing yourself for what you are) and then complain about my "beliefs". Amazing how just a few simple questions so confound you and the rest of this crowd.
They have our money because they own everything and we have no choice but to buy it.
Ah, some testifyin' from the choir of the Leftboro Baptist Church - preach it brother, PREACH IT!
So jurisdiction, what has George Soros made you buy that ripped you off and made him richer and you poorer (and obviously dumber)? If not Soros, how about Buffett or Jobs or Gates? I guess you must hate John Kerry, being married into the Heinz family fortune (and you having no choice but to slather the ketchup onto your fries). Poor slave.
Yup. He's a helpless Pavlovian drone who's programmed by TV ads to go buy those burgers and fries in the first place. He wants Big Mommy to take of him.
I'm sorry, Anonymous, but I watched the video and it's nothing but read meat for angry and irrational people. No one here is advocating anything close to eating the rich.
William, you seem like a reasonable fellow, perhaps you can tell us what the fair share is that the top 10% of income earners should pay (of the total tax burden). Should they be coughing up 30%, 50%, 70%... 90% of total income tax receipts?
I'm with Mark on this one, juris. Put Simpson-Bowles into action which I think includes a tax rate of 39.5 percent for the top tier.
Thanks william but that wasn't the quesion I asked you. Did you not understand the question? I asked what is the fair share that the rich should be paying as a percent of total income taxes collected?
Also, how much additional revenue do you think a 39.5 vs 35% top tax bracket is going to raise? I would suspect that the actual additional revenue is pretty small - so what exactly is the point? Is the symbolic value what is most important?
My mistake. The latest figures I saw were 38 percent in 2008, down from 40 percent in 2007. Are there any figures for 2009 yet? The drop off makes sense to me given that was a recession year. Given these numbers, I don't think there is a set number you can choose and say this is it. It depends on how much money they make. In 2009 and 2010, it's clear that the rich have made more money than ever before but I don't know how much they paid in tax. I say their fair share should be more if they make more. We'd have to look at income growth, right?
I don't know how much revenue the added tax would raise. I simply understand that we can't reduce the deficit by spending cuts only. When the higher tax rate was in place, we managed our budget more effectively. I think you will agree that taxes are lower now than they ever have been. That's a problem given what we have to spend money on in terms of defense, social security, medicare and other programs. I have no problem with those programs being restructured and take issue with Democrats and Republicans who treat them like sacred cows. As President Obama says, everything is on the table including taxes.
Good points, William. I've got a few posts which will echo what you are saying later in the week. We must be reading the same links:)
That was the share for the top 1%. The top 10% are paying about 75% - and that is the level where the top rate is in effect. So, you think that is the fair share - that 1% should pay over a third of the total and the 10% should pay three-quarters of the total bill? It is fair for the remaining 90% of taxpayers to only fund 1/4 of the govt.
I think you will agree that taxes are lower now than they ever have been.
Well, not actually. Rates were much lower pre WWII. Then they were much higher after - until Kennedy pushed through a tax cut, then they crept upwards again. As I recall Reagan cut the top rate to 28%. That didn't seem to stop the growth of the federal govt though did it?
The problem here is that you are looking at it in a very narrow way. I'll explain more tomorrow but simply examining share of revenue from taxes makes no sense without looking at other factors.
Post a Comment