• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ABC's "20/20 - Lessons from Billionaires: Tax ME to create jobs IN AMERICA!"

OWS's problem is that unlike the 60s where the anti war protest had a clear message, and were unified in what they wanted, today the 'demands' of OWS range all the way from making a broad based point that might actually have traction if they were going about it in the proper way, to anarchy, mayhem, and crime that makes them look like foolish spoiled children.

j-mac

They have a clear message - economic justice! With any large national movement you will have a few stragglers looking to cause trouble.
 
So....I'm still waiting for one of these philanthropist billionaires to put their money where their mouth is.

I mean, is there some sort of law that states that though shalt not give more than required, in terms of federal or state income taxes? Short of there being a law, with prison time attached, preventing one from wanting to give more of their earnings than is legally required...


I am still having a hard time trying to understand what these people don't just do that.


Catawba, opinions? Care to weight in on why someone wouldn't just take the initiative?


Here's a hint: do the math on the difference between 25 millionaires volunteering to pay $5,000 more in taxes, and 3 million millionaires paying $5,000 more in taxes.

Which would result in the most revenue, and be the most fair to all millionaires?

You should be able to figure it out from there.

Glad I could help!
 
The balance of wealth in American and around the world is lopsided. There is no denying that. If you don't like the way billionaires are using their money stop bitching about it and do something about it. For starters stop giving them your money. Rather than bitching at the government about jobs, do something about it. Yelling and crying isn't going to change anything. Our economy is failing because the vast majority of Americans would rather buy products made in some sweat shop in Asia rather than products made here in America because the Chinese products are cheaper and their greedy asses are more concerned with getting a deal than the economy of this country. Except when it comes to them of course. The jobs are leaving in this country because no one supports our economy. Instead they cry and whine their being no jobs while waiting in line to send more of our money to China, Mexico and Indonesia. When a companies competitor ships manufacturing to China and cuts costs then every other company there too has to follow suit in order to stay in business. I went down to a anti wall street gathering in Denver last week. Half the people there were sporting Nike, drinking Starbucks, carrying goods in Wal-Mart bags and complaining about big businesses.

I am ranting a bit. Sorry. My point is if Americans want jobs back in America then we need to be supporting our own economies rather than rewarding companies who utilize slave labor to keep costs down. The government cannot change that it is not profitable to keep employees here. Americans can. People need to stop looking for someone else to blame and have a little bit of accountability. Its the American public who is to blame for the economy. Not businesses, billionaires, or the government.
 
For the gazillionth time: The government can't create jobs.

FactCheck.org : Clinton and Economic Growth in the ’90s

Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.

Do you need more or are you ready to admit, finally admit that raising taxes creates jobs

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Try to get it right for the gazillionth time raising taxes creates jobs and reduces the deficit
 
Here's a hint: do the math on the difference between 25 millionaires volunteering to pay $5,000 more in taxes, and 3 million millionaires paying $5,000 more in taxes.

Please provide a source for the '3 million millionaires'. Or are those making above +/-$345k annually considered 'millionaires'?
 
Here's a hint: do the math on the difference between 25 millionaires volunteering to pay $5,000 more in taxes, and 3 million millionaires paying $5,000 more in taxes.

Which would result in the most revenue, and be the most fair to all millionaires?

You should be able to figure it out from there.

Glad I could help!


Most fair, eh? Cool. Let them vote. If a majority of millionaires want to pay more, this should be no problem.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
 
Please provide a source for the '3 million millionaires'. Or are those making above +/-$345k annually considered 'millionaires'?

That number was a guess used to illustrate a math problem.

According to Wikapedia: "The number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more, not including first homes, fell by 2.5 million to 6.7 million in 2008, according to the Spectrum Group report, as reported by Reuters."
Millionaire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

How does this change my point?
 
Most fair, eh? Cool. Let them vote. If a majority of millionaires want to pay more, this should be no problem.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

We are going to vote, in November of next year, and a majority of Americans agree that the tax breaks for the rich should be eliminated.
 
That number was a guess used to illustrate a math problem.

According to Wikapedia: "The number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more, not including first homes, fell by 2.5 million to 6.7 million in 2008, according to the Spectrum Group report, as reported by Reuters."
Millionaire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

How does this change my point?

Oh, I'm sorry. I presumed you wanted to increase the INCOME TAX rate on these millionaires. By your response I now presume you are suggesting we come up with a 'WEALTH TAX'. Is this your idea or have you some source of those who are proposing such?

Is this your point?
 
We are going to vote, in November of next year, and a majority of Americans agree that the tax breaks for the rich should be eliminated.

Of course they do. Because a majority of them aren't in that category. Honestly, I don't care nearly as much about their tax breaks as I do about scrapping the whole current tax code. Personally, I would love to see a tiered system with no deductions at all.

My point is that these wealthy people do not speak for the group as a whole. I don't care for the OWS crowd pretending they speak for me with their 99% stuff either. Having government handle the situation is inefficient (at best), as well. If they want to create jobs, nothing is stopping them from doing it on their own. Because these few wealthy think it's a good plan does not make it immediately alright to tax all wealthy more.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
 
Oh, I'm sorry. I presumed you wanted to increase the INCOME TAX rate on these millionaires. By your response I now presume you are suggesting we come up with a 'WEALTH TAX'. Is this your idea or have you some source of those who are proposing such?

Is this your point?

You presume too much. All we (the majority of the country) are talking about is restoring just a little bit of the progressiveness to our tax system that has been cut away over the last 30 years.
 
Of course they do. Because a majority of them aren't in that category. Honestly, I don't care nearly as much about their tax breaks as I do about scrapping the whole current tax code. Personally, I would love to see a tiered system with no deductions at all.

My point is that these wealthy people do not speak for the group as a whole. I don't care for the OWS crowd pretending they speak for me with their 99% stuff either. Having government handle the situation is inefficient (at best), as well. If they want to create jobs, nothing is stopping them from doing it on their own. Because these few wealthy think it's a good plan does not make it immediately alright to tax all wealthy more.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

What are you bitching about? You will have a clear choice in November if you want to continue with the trickle down economy that has been in place for the last 30 years, or if we want to restore some progressiveness to our tax system as our forefathers intended.
 
What are you bitching about? You will have a clear choice in November if you want to continue with the trickle down economy that has been in place for the last 30 years, or if we want to restore some progressiveness to our tax system as our forefathers intended.

I'm not "bitching" at all. I'm simply expressing my opinion. As for the rest of your comment ... well, I will make my choices in November. I stated my opinion.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
 
You presume too much. All we (the majority of the country) are talking about is restoring just a little bit of the progressiveness to our tax system that has been cut away over the last 30 years.

My previous presumptions were based on the lack of specificity in your posts. I understand THIS ONE. Now can you speak a little more specifically to your desire EMPHASIZING ON 'JUST A LITTLE BIT'? I noted your earlier attempt and found it somewhat short. 3 million millionaires pay $5,000 more will only increase revenue $15b. And as I'm sure you are aware of we have had annual deficits of around $1.5t.
 
We are going to vote, in November of next year, and a majority of Americans agree that the tax breaks for the rich should be eliminated.

the parasite class always wants other to feed them
 
My previous presumptions were based on the lack of specificity in your posts. I understand THIS ONE. Now can you speak a little more specifically to your desire EMPHASIZING ON 'JUST A LITTLE BIT'? I noted your earlier attempt and found it somewhat short. 3 million millionaires pay $5,000 more will only increase revenue $15b. And as I'm sure you are aware of we have had annual deficits of around $1.5t.

efficient revenue collection has nothing to do with what motivates those who want others to pay more taxes
 
efficient revenue collection has nothing to do with what motivates those who want others to pay more taxes

What we really want is for those who got rich by stealing from the middle class and the poor to go to jail where they belong

Chris Hedges made this statement in New York City’s Zuccotti Park on Thursday morning during the People’s Hearing on Goldman Sachs, which he chaired with Dr. Cornel West. The activist and Truthdig columnist then joined a march of several hundred protesters to the nearby corporate headquarters of Goldman Sachs, where he was arrested with 16 others.

Goldman Sachs, which received more subsidies and bailout-related funds than any other investment bank because the Federal Reserve permitted it to become a bank holding company under its “emergency situation,” has used billions in taxpayer money to enrich itself and reward its top executives. It handed its senior employees a staggering $18 billion in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011 in mega-bonuses. This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out fraud and criminal activity rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes.

Goldman Sachs’ commodities index is the most heavily traded in the world. Goldman Sachs hoards rice, wheat, corn, sugar and livestock and jacks up commodity prices around the globe so that poor families can no longer afford basic staples and literally starve. Goldman Sachs is able to carry out its malfeasance at home and in global markets because it has former officials filtered throughout the government and lavishly funds compliant politicians—including Barack Obama, who received $1 million from employees at Goldman Sachs in 2008 when he ran for president. These politicians, in return, permit Goldman Sachs to ignore security laws that under a functioning judiciary system would see the firm indicted for felony fraud. Or, as in the case of Bill Clinton, these politicians pass laws such as the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that effectively removed all oversight and outside control over the speculation in commodities, one of the major reasons food prices have soared. In 2008 and again in 2010 prices for crops such as rice, wheat and corn doubled and even tripled, making life precarious for hundreds of millions of people. And it was all done so a few corporate oligarchs, the 1 percent, could make personal fortunes in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. Despite a damning 650-page Senate subcommittee investigation report, no individual at Goldman Sachs has been indicted, although the report accuses Goldman of defrauding its clients.

Most news sources are funded by corporations and investors. Their goal is to drive people to advertisers while pushing the corporate agenda. NationofChange is a 501(c)3 organization funded almost 100% from its readers–you! Our only accountability is to the public.

When the government in the fall 2008 provided the firm with billions of dollars in the form of cheap loans, FDIC debt guarantees, TARP, AIG make-wholes, and a late-night label-shift from investment bank to bank holding company, giving the firm access to excessive Federal Reserve aid, access [the corporation] still has, it enabled and abetted Goldman’s criminal behavior. Goldman Sachs unloaded billions in worthless securities to its clients, decimating 401(k)s, pension and mutual funds. The firm misled investors about the true nature of these worthless securities, insisted the securities they were pushing on their clients were sound, and hid the material fact that, simultaneously, they were betting against these same securities—$2 billion against just one of their deals. The firm then had the gall to extort from its victims—us—to make good on its bets when the global economy it helped trash lost $40 trillion in worldwide wealth and huge insurance firms were unable to cover their bad debts.
The Securities Act of 1933, established in the wake of the massive fraud that pervaded the securities market before the 1929 Crash, was written to ensure that “any securities transactions are not based on fraudulent information or practices.” The act “prohibits deceit, misrepresentation, and other fraud in the sale of securities.” The subcommittee report indicates that Goldman Sachs clearly broke security laws.

As part of the political theater that has come to replace the legislative and judicial process, the Securities and Exchange Commission agreed to a $550 million settlement whereby Goldman Sachs admitted it showed “incomplete” information in marketing materials and that it was a “mistake” to not disclose the nature of its portfolio selection committee. This fine was a payoff to the SEC by Goldman Sachs of about four days’ worth of revenue, and in return they avoided going to court. CEO Lloyd Blankfein apparently not only lied to clients, but to the subcommittee itself on April 27, 2010, when he told lawmakers: “We didn’t have a massive short against the housing market, and we certainly did not bet against our clients.” Yet, they did.
And yet nothing has been done. No Goldman Sachs officials have gone to trial. This is because there is no way within the corporate state to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs. There is no way through the formal mechanisms of power to restore the rule of law. There is no way to protect the ordinary citizen and the poor around the globe from the predatory activity of financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs. Since our courts refuse to put on trial the senior executives at Goldman Sachs, including Blankfein, who carried out these crimes and lied to cover them up, we will. Speculators like those in Goldman Sachs—who in the 17th century when speculation was a crime would have been hanged—must be prevented by law from again destroying our economy, preying on ordinary citizens, hoarding food so the poor starve and running our political process. We are paying for these crimes—not those who orchestrated perhaps the most massive fraud in human history. Our teachers, police, firefighters and public employees are losing their jobs so speculators like Blankfein can make an estimated $250,000 a day. Working men and women are losing their homes and going into personal bankruptcy because they cannot pay their medical bills. Our unemployed, far closer to 20 percent than the official 9 percent, are in deep distress all so a criminal class, a few blocks from where I speak, can wallow in luxury with mansions and yachts and swollen bank accounts.

What we are asking for today is simple—it is a return to the rule of law. And since the formal mechanisms of power refuse to restore the rule of law, then we, the 99 percent, will have to see that justice is done.
This article was originally posted on Truthdig.
 
What we really want is for those who got rich by stealing from the middle class and the poor to go to jail where they belong

GREAT IDEA! But is seems the effort is a little misdirected. The ones who are responsible for putting ‘those who got rich by stealing from the middle class and the poor’ in jail are in WASHINGTON, not New York. They should be showering their attention on Mary Shapiro (SEC Chairman), Eric Holder (Attorney General) and their BOSS President Obama. If a person breaks into your house how much attention will you get by going and protesting in front of the robber’s house…MOST people will go to law enforcement to get this attention.
 
Goldman should have been allowed to fail....period. How Goldman, GE, GM, BofA, Fannie/Freddie, etc., etc., were favorably treated by the political class, once again, shows what happens when true capitalism is replaced with crony capitalism.....survival of the fittest is replaced with survival of the screw-ups.
 
Those who inherit wealth come to mind.

Interesting. So everyone that is lucky enough to receive an inheritance is a parasite. You must be talking about those nasty bad people that are the fourth or fifth generation of farmers or those nasty bad people that inherit a family business. I know this horrible man that inherited a small fortune and he has spent the last 20 years running a foundation that serves the poor in his community, unwed mothers, the poor folks that can't afford higher ed. ...... yup, he's a real scumbag. The State should have confiscated his parents estate to prevent their children from living such an outlandish lifestyle. The State could have used that money more wisely by pumping it into economic blackholes like Solyndra or Fast & Furious programs. Brilliant idea dude.
 
Interesting. So everyone that is lucky enough to receive an inheritance is a parasite. You must be talking about those nasty bad people that are the fourth or fifth generation of farmers or those nasty bad people that inherit a family business. I know this horrible man that inherited a small fortune and he has spent the last 20 years running a foundation that serves the poor in his community, unwed mothers, the poor folks that can't afford higher ed. ...... yup, he's a real scumbag. The State should have confiscated his parents estate to prevent their children from living such an outlandish lifestyle. The State could have used that money more wisely by pumping it into economic blackholes like Solyndra or Fast & Furious programs. Brilliant idea dude.

Doubt he said that. I doubt he was referring to those who inherit capital assets like land that require actual work for a return in investment. In fact, I would guarantee he is talking about those who live solely off interest and capital gains and then say they help they economy. There is no reason for a straw man argument - we can have this discussion without asinine assertions like that.
 
efficient revenue collection has nothing to do with what motivates those who want others to pay more taxes

Your suspicions put aside, the U.S. has an enormous obligation to its creditors (most of which are the citizens of this country). Failure to raise revenue increases the likelihood that these obligations will not be met.
 
Doubt he said that. I doubt he was referring to those who inherit capital assets like land that require actual work for a return in investment. In fact, I would guarantee he is talking about those who live solely off interest and capital gains and then say they help they economy. There is no reason for a straw man argument - we can have this discussion without asinine assertions like that.

Am I supposed to read his mind? I prefer to limit my responses to what he actually writes.

Just so I am clear. If a family farm that is worth $10m is passed on inan estate, that's cool. If the same farmer decides to sell his farm right before he dies, he should have that money confiscated. What's next? Does the State get a clawback provision that allows it to confiscate the proceeds of the sale of the farm if it is done after the kids inherit it? You guys should man up and say it, you are class envious and you hate it when someone has more than you do. Grow up, that's life.
 
Your suspicions put aside, the U.S. has an enormous obligation to its creditors (most of which are the citizens of this country). Failure to raise revenue increases the likelihood that these obligations will not be met.

That isn't remotely true. Moreover, raising revenues doesn't mean those obligations will be met when the politicians look at new revenues as a source of funding for more spending.
 
Back
Top Bottom