Soaking the rich doesn’t work

[Rajoo]

Republicans have started to care about income inequality

"Which brings us to an uneasy question: If Republicans have pivoted to care more about the poor, and Democrats have pivoted to care more about the middle class, who’s left to look out for America’s newly neglected rich?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3

Answer: As long as this concern for the middle class and the poor stays in the talking stage (similar to Israel-Palestine peace talks), and never talk about revising the tax code (settlements)...............

[bobabode]

I'd rather we stick an apple in their mouths and fire up the smoker, baste them up with some sweet BBQ sauce. Then feed 'em to a pack of abandoned ravenous dogs roaming the wastelands of Detroit.

What can I say, we're living in the neo Gilded Age and I'm tired of hearing how the rich amongst us are sorely put upon by the rest of the nation.

Drone much Whelly?

[Tom Joad]

Americans making over $250,000 in 1944 — over $3.2 million today — paid 69 percent of their total incomes in federal income taxes, after exploiting every loophole they could find. In 2007, by contrast, America’s 400 highest earners paid just 18.1 percent of their total incomes, after loopholes, in federal taxes.


read more here.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Americans making over $250,000 in 1944 — over $3.2 million today — paid 69 percent of their total incomes in federal income taxes, after exploiting every loophole they could find. In 2007, by contrast, America’s 400 highest earners paid just 18.1 percent of their total incomes, after loopholes, in federal taxes.


read more here.

Hmmm...wasn't there a World War going on in 1944 that we were trying to finance our participation in? Not that a little thing like that would make any difference in tax policy and revenue collections....

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

Hmmm...wasn't there a World War going on in 1944 that we were trying to finance our participation in? Not that a little thing like that would make any difference in tax policy and revenue collections....

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/ne...n-World-War-II

Iraq war will cost more than World War II

Throw in the replacement of vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc., and the eventual tab for the United States could reach $4 trillion to $6 trillion, according to University of Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes. Those are big numbers.

They would be on par with the $4.6 trillion the US spent on the recent financial bailouts, according to Barry Ritholtz, CEO of Wall Street research firm Fusion IQ and author of the popular blog The Big Picture. (Another estimate puts the bailout cost at $8.7 trillion.) The sum spent on the Iraq war could pay for a good chunk of Obamacare, professor Bilnes estimates. It’s more than the $3.6 trillion the US spent to fight World War II, even after adjusting for inflation, Mr. Ritholtz estimates.

And that's just for Iraq. Then we have Afghanistan.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I'd rather we stick an apple in their mouths and fire up the smoker, baste them up with some sweet BBQ sauce. Then feed 'em to a pack of abandoned ravenous dogs roaming the wastelands of Detroit.

What can I say, we're living in the neo Gilded Age and I'm tired of hearing how the rich amongst us are sorely put upon by the rest of the nation.

Drone much Whelly?

I'm tired of the gummint telling us that they can create jobs and stimulate the economy while coming up with tax policies that are ostensibly aimed at the "rich" but end up biting the rest of us in the ass.

Here's how I drone, Bobby.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm tired of the gummint telling us that they can create jobs and stimulate the economy while coming up with tax policies that are ostensibly aimed at the "rich" but end up biting the rest of us in the ass.

Here's how I drone, Bobby.

Too funny Mike. Spoken like the HR drone you truly are. Bootlick much?

BTW dipshit,
http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=7542

[finnbow]

To the OP (and anyone else): Do you honestly believe that there are rich people who would willingly forgo tax breaks at 35%, but would start looking for them when the top marginal rate hit 39.6%. Same question for capital gains: How many rich people are going to forgo investments in equities when the cap gains rate goes from 15 to 20% (still half the rate of taxation on ordinary income).

If you believe either, you either have no clue about human behavior, taxation or investment strategies.

[Rajoo]

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sat for their first joint TV interview ever for this Sunday's "60 Minutes" on CBS.

In a clip released by the network in advance, reporter Scott Pelley asks Boehner and McConnell to assess some of Obama's proposals delivered during his address to Congress. They're dismissive of Obama's idea to provide tax breaks to middle-income Americans at the expense of the wealthy and a plan to provide free community college to eligible workers, arguing that it would only add to the national debt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d1394&hpid=z10

[piece-itpete]

Back when 'Clinton lowered' capital gains the government economists had a pretty good idea how much more tax revenue it would generate, so yes, the rate matters. It's also known that money flows from high tax rate areas to low ones. I find the argument that rates don't matter to be an interesting one.

Pete