[vision-master]

'Patriotic Millionaires' Lobby Congress for Higher Taxes on Rich

Many Republican MYTH's are BUSTED!

NOTE: They are talking about ppl who make $1,000,000 + year.

[Oakley]

Diversionary tactic.

[basil_hayden]

Why send more money to be wasted by an inefficient government?

Send the checks directly to me (or even you).

Or send the checks directly to a local library or other hurting institution, philanthropically.

Better yet, folks like Warren Buffett can lower my car insurance rates instead of jacking it up every six months despite no claims and Bill Gates can stop charging altogether for an operating system that's never worked right.

Maybe they can just stop downsizing my ice cram and make it a full half gallon again.

Does it even occur to the "rich" that they simply overcharge the general public?

[vision-master]

For instance, in years when the top marginal rate was more than 90 percent, the average annual growth in total payroll employment was 2 percent. In years when the top marginal rate was 35 percent or less—which it is now—employment grew by an average of just 0.4 percent.

And there’s no cherry-picking here. Pick any threshold. When the marginal tax rate was 50 percent or above, annual employment growth averaged 2.3 percent, and when the rate was under 50, growth was half that.


In fact, if you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher. The top 10 years would share marginal tax rates at 50 percent or higher. The two worst years, on the other hand, were 2008 and 2009, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent. In the 13 years that the top marginal tax rate has been at its current level or lower, only one year even cracks the top 20 in overall job creation.

We showed last week that lower rates are not associated with faster overall economic growth—just the opposite, in fact. And now we know that lower rates don’t coincide with higher job growth, either. So where is the evidence that the lower marginal tax rates spur job creation? It’s certainly not present in the past 60 years of American history.

[Serial_Worrier]

Why don't they just write a check if they feel the government is under-funded? Why must they force everyone else to pay more? What is this force-fetish the left has?

[Pretorian]

Why don't they just write a check if they feel the government is under-funded? Why must they force everyone else to pay more? What is this force-fetish the left has?

Well imagine that in 1 country there are 1 billionaire and 1000 000 people making $ 2000 per year ( yes, that's what a laborer ( not a pencil pusher, those are expensive) is worth these days) . Taxes jacked up by 50%. Billionaire won't feel a thing, and that million will be skinned alive. And who has more influence on how their taxes will be spent, billionaire or a random yokel with $2000 per year? Tough question isn't it.

[vision-master]

Why don't they just write a check if they feel the government is under-funded? Why must they force everyone else to pay more? What is this force-fetish the left has?

So the government passes the hat around when it goes to war and asks who want's to contribute? Watch the video, your hat-passing is explained.

Go to Min 5:40 ( The Government is not a charity)

[AgentR11]

They're just reinforcing the viewport of the lower 80%. Focused ever on income...

ASSETS AND TRUSTS >>>>>>>>>>>> income

Someone up there is laughing their butts off watching the so called 99 whine about income taxes disparity.

[Serial_Worrier]

Why don't they just write a check if they feel the government is under-funded? Why must they force everyone else to pay more? What is this force-fetish the left has?

So the government passes the hat around when it goes to war and asks who want's to contribute? Watch the video, your hat-passing is explained.

Go to Min 5:40 ( The Government is not a charity)

Everyone should pay the same rate.

[vision-master]

'Everyone should pay the same rate.'

Same with medical insurance?

[dsula]

Why don't they just write a check if they feel the government is under-funded? Why must they force everyone else to pay more? What is this force-fetish the left has?

So the government passes the hat around when it goes to war and asks who want's to contribute? Watch the video, your hat-passing is explained.

Go to Min 5:40 ( The Government is not a charity)

Everyone should pay the same rate.

NO. EVERYBODY SHOULD PAY A FLAT FEE. Say $10k/yr independent of income.

[vision-master]

Yeah right... this place is full of wacko's.

[Pops]

Diversionary tactic.

Exactly.

We are writing to ask you to do the right thing for our country and REJECT ANY Super Committee deal that does not raise tax rates on incomes over $1 million to AT LEAST 39.6%, REGARDLESS of how many deductions are eliminated.

Private jets shouldn’t have been tax deductible in the first place.
Thank you,
Patriotic Millionaires and Patriotic Americans

The guy that started this is a venture capitalist, I'd be surprised if he's paid any taxes on W2 income since he had a paper route.

AR is right, the capitalists would be happy with a top "income tax" rate of 99% as long as dividends and capital gains and grandpa's estate are taxed at 0%.

Personally I'd be happy to pay a flat tax (I've paid next to 0% fed income tax for years) as long as capital gains and dividend income and inheritance is taxed at the same rate as the wages of the workers that make the rich rich.


It's really sad how so many allow their ego and greed to be hijacked and used to empower an overclass.

[AgentR11]

AR is right, the capitalists would be happy with a top "income tax" rate of 99% as long as dividends and capital gains and grandpa's estate are taxed at 0%.
Personally I'd be happy to pay a flat tax (I've paid next to 0% fed income tax for years) as long as capital gains and dividend income and inheritance is taxed at the same rate as the wages of the workers that make the rich rich.

Capital gains are taxed, at a reduced rate, with the rate depending upon how long the investment was held (short term/long term).

Inheritance is taxed, but exempts a first, sizable chunk. In addition, gaming the system and various financial products and entities to reduce the total take of the federal government upon inheritance is great sport. But they do pay some, in general. Not as much as you might imagine or wish, but they do pay. Remember, if you're an uber-wealthy individual, having a billion dollars in a checking account and personally owned land is *NOT* how its done. You need a million or few in after tax, accessible, liquid funds; past that, it doesn't make a hill of beans worth of difference to your lifestyle whether that wealth is in foreign assets, gold in your desk, charitable trusts that you control, oddball insurance products, or whatever; as long as you control its use, its power belongs to you. Fungibility is an amazing thing; after all, the Church or Greenpeace doesn't really care whether your check came from your Citi checking account or The Burgerville Charitable Foundation of NewRobberville.

As long as the people are focused on income tax as the answer.... the 1% have already won.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Why don't they just write a check if they feel the government is under-funded? Why must they force everyone else to pay more? What is this force-fetish the left has?

Well imagine that in 1 country there are 1 billionaire and 1000 000 people making $ 2000 per year ( yes, that's what a laborer ( not a pencil pusher, those are expensive) is worth these days) . Taxes jacked up by 50%. Billionaire won't feel a thing, and that million will be skinned alive. And who has more influence on how their taxes will be spent, billionaire or a random yokel with $2000 per year? Tough question isn't it.

In the U.S. someone below the poverty line is PAID by the government if they work, via an "earned income credit". So jacking up their taxes by 50% would NOT skin them alive -- they already pay NEGATIVE income tax.

If you're going to push left wing propoganda on why we should soak (only) the rich, you might actually try to use an example REMOTELY approaching facts.

Meanwhile in the real world on the PBS News Hour today, I saw a story where the tax positions of both parties were described quite well:

a). If we go back to the Clinton era tax rates for EVERYONE (which we should if we're serious about the deficits) it would raise about $4 trillion over the next decade without cutting ANYTHING. (Assuming Congress wouldn't try to spend the increase - which both parties would. I'd also like to cut spending on EVERYTHING to balance the budget -- but fat chance of THAT).

b). The GOP doesn't want to raise taxes on ANYONE, just ignoring the problem, claiming their policies will magically grow us out of our problems, trickle down, etc. Well, that won't work because BOTH sides spend all the new revenue taken in.

c). The Dems only want to exempt about 98% of folks from the Clinton era tax rates (clearly pandering to their base via their "soak the rich" policy). Then whine that the GOP is evil, and that their claims of class warfare are false yadda yadda.

Neither side wants to compromise -- just complain that it's the other side's fault.

Both sides suck. No wonder Congress has a job approval rating of 9%.

My plan would admit we have a problem, put some skin in the game from EVERYONE, and prevent us from becoming Greece and Italy. However, the voters, who want unicorns for nothing, would never go for it.

We, as a country will get what we deserve, eventually. Currency debasement.

And both sides will go down in flames blaming the other side....

[Cog]

I favor the most fair tax plan of all. Simply stop collecting income taxes from anyone.

There you go.

[AgentR11]

If we are going to fight wars and have a powerful, offensive, projective military; we must pay for it.

Actually, this supercommittee thing is a perfect test vehicle for conservatives; if they believe in lower taxes, they will allow the default sequestration to go into effect. If they believe in strong military power, they will raise taxes. Amazing what politicians will do to themselves if you let them put off the political price tag for a few months! lol.

[vision-master]

If we are going to fight wars and have a powerful, offensive, projective military; we must pay for it.

Actually, this supercommittee thing is a perfect test vehicle for conservatives; if they believe in lower taxes, they will allow the default sequestration to go into effect. If they believe in strong military power, they will raise taxes. Amazing what politicians will do to themselves if you let them put off the political price tag for a few months! lol.

Don't you mean START wars, oil wars. The Military will break this Country, Eisenhower warned us decades ago.

[Cog]

Fighting wars will not alter geology.

[AgentR11]

Don't you mean START wars, oil wars. The Military will break this Country, Eisenhower warned us decades ago.

Not really. I don't much care who starts a war, only who wins.
If we want to fight, then we need to pay. If we don't want to pay, then we need to pull back and let the rest of the world do whatever the heck they want to with each other. Popcorn *is* cheaper than bullets I suppose.