Dems propose minimum 45% tax on millionaires

[mad cow]

For taxable income from $1 million to $10 million, the bill would set a 45 percent tax rate. That rate increases to 46 percent for income between $10 million and 20 million, 47 percent for income between $20 million and $100 million, and 48 percent for income between $100 million and $1 billion.

Schakowsky pointed to a Congressional Research Service study that said raising tax rates on the wealthy has "little to no impact on macroeconomic growth."

Her bill is co-sponsored by Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Donna Edwards (D-Md.), Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.).


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/296375-dems-propose-minimum-45-percent-tax-rate-on-income-above-1-million#ixzz2Rcbb3eNR
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

More at link.

[asurfaholic]

Lolz wow.

No effect? How about the effect of what happens when people no longer see any benefit in investing in their communities?

[paulbot24]

Schakowsky pointed to a Congressional Research Service study that said raising tax rates on the wealthy has "little to no impact on macroeconomic growth."

How's this idea working out in France? Wow. Remember when the government encouraged people to go out and make lots of money?

[kathy88]

Jealousy is an ugly trait.

[Petar]

If this doesn't motivate people with money to donate to liberty candidates, then I don't know what will.

[Petar]

Oh, except that the ultra-rich are actually for this, because the ultra-rich value their connections to an all-powerful central government more than any numbers that they have sitting in bank accounts.

[Brian4Liberty]

48 percent for income between $100 million and $1 billion

And zero taxes for those over a billion!

[cindy25]

Jealousy is an ugly trait.

its not jealousy but desperation for more money to provide their handouts.

[jclay2]

its not jealousy but desperation for more money to provide their handouts.

This is not true. They have never had any money for handouts as it is always borrowed. There is no such thing as lack of funding for the government. If they want to start a new welfare program for illegals, it will happen. These taxes have nothing to do with deficits and everything to do with crushing the economy to enhance state control.

[tttppp]

More at link.

Tell that to an entreprenuer that raising taxes on the rich has no impact. Where do they think investment comes from?

[MelissaWV]

If this doesn't motivate people with money to donate to liberty candidates, then I don't know what will.

Or they could just move. They're rich. They could go most anywhere, and honestly other nations are becoming far friendlier places to do business.

[Anti Federalist]

I hate your avatar Petar.

[Petar]

Or they could just move. They're rich. They could go most anywhere, and honestly other nations are becoming far friendlier places to do business.

Or they could do both, and also buy a pony, or 12 ponies, or 715 ponies. Tax ponies.

[Petar]

I hate your avatar Petar.

I know, the Queen is gross. Look at how her boobs just hang.

[supermario21]

This is unreal...two things you can always count on: Republicans pushing for war, and Democrats pushing for tax hikes.

[liberty2897]

I know, the Queen is gross. Look at how her boobs just hang.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8fLOJswWtk

[paulbot24]

This is unreal...two things you can always count on: Republicans pushing for war, and Democrats pushing for tax hikes.

and

Democrats pushing for drone war, and Republicans pushing for "mandates."

It's time for a second party!

[Keith and stuff]

This sounds like something Republicans in CA and NY would push. Surprised they haven't cosponsored this yet.

[supermario21]

He'll be around to it soon enough...

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/581904_10151581240573417_1785343868_n.jpg

[CPUd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07fTsF5BiSM

[Christian Liberty]

Of course, GOP will vote for this. They need money to fund the Empire...

We're screwed. Have fun making us all starve, GOP and Democrats.

Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, I know you guys are all gonna vote against this. For that, I thank you all. Stand strong and oppose this nonsense....

[TheTexan]

Would you be ok with a 45% tax on the extremely wealthy if it was paid directly to the people, and not the government?

I would say the vast majority of the extremely wealthy acquired their vast wealth by profiting off the government's theft. I would also say I would be 100% comfortable with recovering the stolen money from them if such theft could be proven and quantified.

However, the theft in most cases is indirect, and would be very difficult to quantify. So I'm not sure if I'd be ok with a blanket tax.

Modern banking on the other hand is almost entirely based on theft. I would say it's extremely difficult nowadays to be a banker without at least passively participating in that theft to some degree. So I'd be a bit more ok with just flat out taking their money without trial or due process, as they have so often done to us.

On the one hand, these people are actively stealing from us on a massive, global scale, and on the other, it's simply not possible to sue them individually for damages. What's the solution here, to recover the stolen money in an equitable fashion? (other than the obvious solution: rope)

[NoOneButPaul]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." - CS Lewis

[Christian Liberty]

Bill Gates earned his money fairly... Granted, he's a lefty, so that's a flaw of his, but as a capitalist, I think he's great. Its completely unfair to tax him 45%, even if maybe he would agree to it.

Fractional Reserve Bankers... I'd appreciate some help as to quantifying exactly WHY this is fraud. I know it is but had trouble explaining it to someone. The cure is worse than the disease though. Flat out taking their money would just make it worse. Crush the regulations that let them do so well.

[NoOneButPaul]

Would you be ok with a 45% tax on the extremely wealthy if it was paid directly to the people, and not the government?

I would say the vast majority of the extremely wealthy acquired their vast wealth by profiting off the government's theft. I would also say I would be 100% comfortable with recovering the stolen money from them if such theft could be proven and quantified.

However, the theft in most cases is indirect, and would be very difficult to quantify. So I'm not sure if I'd be ok with a blanket tax.

Modern banking on the other hand is almost entirely based on theft. I would say it's extremely difficult nowadays to be a banker without at least passively participating in that theft to some degree. So I'd be a bit more ok with just flat out taking their money without trial or due process, as they have so often done to us.

On the one hand, these people are actively stealing from us on a massive, global scale, and on the other, it's simply not possible to sue them individually for damages. What's the solution here, to recover the stolen money in an equitable fashion? (other than the obvious solution: rope)

Had to stop reading at the bolded... first off all... vast majority? You know this how?

My dad falls into this category and he's already taxed more than half his income every year. He put himself through school with mountains of debt, worked as a busboy while getting his masters degree, worked 10-12hour days when I was a kid, and after decades of this it finally worked out for him and he slowly got into a position that has made him rich.

He's exhausted himself mentally and physically and earned EVERYTHING that he's got, no handouts, no money from his parents, NOTHING.

This foolish notion that everyone carries around about the rich is the biggest problem. People think all these rich folk inherited their wealth or made it by screwing over others but at the end of the day a large amount of them (possibly even a "vast majority") busted their asses their entire life for their success and are now watching their government ask them for more and more and more...

He's sat down and calculated it and discovered that if he were to take a new job, making nearly 80% less a year than he currently does, he would actually almost break even.

Yes... lets tax them some more... ignore history, and ignore what happened in France.

It doesn't matter who the money goes to this shit is morally repugnant and unacceptable. These tyrants have no right to any of our income, period.

[Christian Liberty]

Had to stop reading at the bolded... first off all... vast majority? You know this how?

My dad falls into this category and he's already taxed more than half his income every year. He put himself through school with mountains of debt, worked as a busboy while getting his masters degree, worked 10-12hour days when I was a kid, and after decades of this it finally worked out for him and he slowly got into a position that has made him rich.

He's exhausted himself mentally and physically and earned EVERYTHING that he's got, no handouts, no money from his parents, NOTHING.

This foolish notion that everyone carries around about the rich is the biggest problem. People think all these rich folk inherited their wealth or made it by screwing over others but at the end of the day a large amount of them (possibly even a "vast majority") busted their asses their entire life for their success and are now watching their government ask them for more and more and more...

He's sat down and calculated it and discovered that if he were to take a new job, making nearly 80% less a year than he currently does, he would actually almost break even.

Yes... lets tax them some more... ignore history, and ignore what happened in France.

It doesn't matter who the money goes to this shit is morally repugnant and unacceptable. These tyrants have no right to any of our income, period.
Ultimately I'd tend to agree. I'd settle for somewhere around five percent. In reality they take much, much more than that...

If there was a way to pinpoint particularly who only got rich because of government cheating I MIGHT be more open to this, but the bottom line is that they can't and they won't. Legitimate capitalists deserve to keep their money, even if they might be stupid and advocate for politics that will not allow them that choice (Such as Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.)

[mad cow]

Would you be ok with a 45% tax on the extremely wealthy if it was paid directly to the people, and not the government?

I would say the vast majority of the extremely wealthy acquired their vast wealth by profiting off the government's theft. I would also say I would be 100% comfortable with recovering the stolen money from them if such theft could be proven and quantified.

However, the theft in most cases is indirect, and would be very difficult to quantify. So I'm not sure if I'd be ok with a blanket tax.

Modern banking on the other hand is almost entirely based on theft. I would say it's extremely difficult nowadays to be a banker without at least passively participating in that theft to some degree. So I'd be a bit more ok with just flat out taking their money without trial or due process, as they have so often done to us.

On the one hand, these people are actively stealing from us on a massive, global scale, and on the other, it's simply not possible to sue them individually for damages. What's the solution here, to recover the stolen money in an equitable fashion? (other than the obvious solution: rope)

When you have people with maxed out rep points on a so-called libertarian forum even asking this question,I'd say your wish is just around the corner.

[NoOneButPaul]

The problem with saying 5% or 10% or 1% or even .1% is that once the precedent is set then it's insidiously raised as the decades march on.

Even if we dropped it to 5% now, how long would it take until we got to 6%? 7%? 10%? How long would it be until we got right back to where we are today?

This is a moral issue and not a fiscal one. People do not deserve ANY of our income! We can't give them an inch because they eventually take a mile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aLzToYEF0A
"Zero Percent, what's so bad about that" - Ron Paul 1-16-12

[Christian Liberty]

The problem with saying 5% or 10% or 1% or even .1% is that once the precedent is set then it's insidiously raised as the decades march on.

Even if we dropped it to 5% now, how long would it take until we got to 6%? 7%? 10%? How long would it be until we got right back to where we are today?

This is a moral issue and not a fiscal one. People do not deserve ANY of our income! We can't give them an inch because they eventually take a mile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aLzToYEF0A
"Zero Percent, what's so wrong about that" - Ron Paul 1-16-12

Philosophically, I agree with you. Practically speaking, even if foreign threats weren't a problem (And honestly, i think somebody would attack us if we had no defense force) the reality is, liberals would just form mobs to steal money ala Robin Hood (I realize Robin probably actually stole from statists, not plain old "Rich people" but you get my point). The minarchist government is a challenge to set up but could potentially stop their theft.

I don't really see the hatred for the income tax other than the simple fact that its a tax. Which is enough, IMO, but I don't see why any other kind of tax, other than maybe something completely indirect like a tariff or something, is really any better. I also don't see why people who support any kind of income taxes exclude capital gains.

Personally, I don't really care what type the tax is as long as its small (Or zero... if you get that far.)

[Christian Liberty]

When you have people with maxed out rep points on a so-called libertarian forum even asking this question,I'd say your wish is just around the corner.
I don't know if he's wishing or just playing devil's advocate. The reality is, not everyone who is rich earned it on the free market. That's how crony capitalism "Works." Do I really support taking money from people? Nah, not really, I'm much more concerned about tearing government down. Do I pretend like everyone who "Earned" money under cronyism actually deserves it? No. Do I get why he's asking the question? Yeah, although I hope he recognizes that SOME of the wealthy did earn it.

Big difference between job-creating capitalists and money-destryoing fractional reserve banksters.

[TheTexan]

Had to stop reading at the bolded... first off all... vast majority? You know this how?

It's a common observation I've found among the extremely wealthy. There certainly are exceptions.


My dad falls into this category and he's already taxed more than half his income every year. He put himself through school with mountains of debt, worked as a busboy while getting his masters degree, worked 10-12hour days when I was a kid, and after decades of this it finally worked out for him and he slowly got into a position that has made him rich.

Note, by "extremely wealthy" I mean much more than just a million. A million is nothing nowadays. Try 50 million.

I don't know anything about your father so I won't make any assumptions about him. He very well could be an exception.

But, because you disagree with the statement in bold, means you and I very likely have a very different perspective on this economic system. I see government sponsored theft in just about every industry. Some industries more than others. In banking for example, the theft is everywhere. In IT companies, not so much, but its still there.


This foolish notion that everyone carries around about the rich is the biggest problem. People think all these rich folk inherited their wealth or made it by screwing over others but at the end of the day a large amount of them (possibly even a "vast majority") busted their asses their entire life for their success and are now watching their government ask them for more and more and more...

I'm not saying the wealthy didn't bust their ass. I would say, aside from those who inherited it, most certainly did bust their ass. But you have to ask yourself, would these same people have gotten the same results if the government wasn't paying them stolen money? Or if their company didn't take advantage of cheap money thanks to the Fed? Or if the government's legislation hadn't helped their business (and hurt others) in some way?

Much of that is very indirect, and individuals often have very little control over that, which is why I do not necessarily hold it against them. But just because they aren't individually culpable, does not mean they did not get rich off of theft (or other forms of government force).

[AGRP]

Why not 95%?

[TheTexan]

When you have people with maxed out rep points on a so-called libertarian forum even asking this question,I'd say your wish is just around the corner.

It was a rhetorical question dipshit. If you read further down you would see that I do not advocate for that.

[TheTexan]

If there was a way to pinpoint particularly who only got rich because of government cheating I MIGHT be more open to this, but the bottom line is that they can't and they won't. Legitimate capitalists deserve to keep their money, even if they might be stupid and advocate for politics that will not allow them that choice (Such as Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.)

Exactly... there really isn't a way to prove it or quantify it in most cases, which is why I asked the question of where your opinions are. I'm personally against wrongfully taking a single dime from a single innocent person, even if it meant that 100 guilty bankers were hung.

[mad cow]

Exactly... there really isn't a way to prove it or quantify it in most cases, which is why I asked the question of where your opinions are. I'm personally against wrongfully taking a single dime from a single innocent person, even if it meant that 100 guilty bankers were hung.

Thanks for the neg rep,my first.I read your entire post,I didn't agree with any of it.

Maybe you will get your wish from this post.Or maybe we will all just get free Obama phones.

[TheTexan]

Maybe you will get your wish from this post.Or maybe we will all just get free Obama phones.

Hmm?

[Christian Liberty]

Exactly... there really isn't a way to prove it or quantify it in most cases, which is why I asked the question of where your opinions are. I'm personally against wrongfully taking a single dime from a single innocent person, even if it meant that 100 guilty bankers were hung.

I don't see 'No innocent people" as realistic, Rothbard's "Reasonable man" is better. This case is unique though in that it literally advocates using the government to fix a problem caused by... government. It just doesn't make sense. The best way to "Punish" the fractional reserve bankers and whatnot is to take away their legal protections, the Fed, and whatnot. Fractional reserve should also probably be criminalized as fraud, although I could live with no lender of last resort and no bailouts. If you want to do more than that, let vigilantes deal with them, withdraw ALL their legal protections and make them into outlaws. Don't use their wealth to enrich the state, however.

[mad cow]

Modern banking on the other hand is almost entirely based on theft. I would say it's extremely difficult nowadays to be a banker without at least passively participating in that theft to some degree. So I'd be a bit more ok with just flat out taking their money without trial or due process, as they have so often done to us.


100 guilty bankers were hung

You advocate hanging people without trial and stealing their money without due process.

THAT HMM!

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think that's what he said. Although its ideal, aren't there SOME people that really don't need trials? Honestly, I mean, its one thing if its in police custody, you could have been torutred or something, but if you admit your guilt publicly, particularly if your crime is actually legal under statist laws, is it really in doubt that you did, in fact, commit the crime? I'd prefer the trial, but if we can't.... you know what I'm saying. I say if you know (and I mean KNOW, not "Think") someone is guilty, that sort of thing by a non-state actor is theoretically justified, albeit not legal. I see no good reason, although I am not actually advocating anything, that George W. Bush necessarily needs a trial.

[TheTexan]

You advocate hanging people without trial and stealing their money without due process.

THAT HMM!

I advocate hanging people without trial? I do not, and have said that nowhere.

I advocate stealing money without due process? I sort of implied it, and can understand why you would think that, but no, I do not. I said I would be "a bit more ok" with it. As in, I do not advocate it, but I wouldn't exactly go out of my way to raise an uproar about it, either. They are bankers, after all.

[mad cow]

How many people in the history of the United States have been hanged for theft?Any?

[Anti Federalist]

He'll be around to it soon enough...

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/581904_10151581240573417_1785343868_n.jpg

Does this asshole go anywhere without an "official" sash?

[TheTexan]

How many people in the history of the United States have been hanged for theft?Any?

If you go back to the years leading up to our nation's founding, you will find that Americans were, and had to be, shall you say, more aggressive... with their justice.

Similar to how it was during that time, the justice system simply won't work until this nation gets fixed. And this nation won't get fixed until people assert justice.

There should still be a trial. But that trial doesn't need to be conventional.

And it's not just theft. It's also fraud, and I would also say it's treason. Treason is still a capital offense, last time I checked.

[TheTexan]

Does this asshole go anywhere without an "official" sash?

Fireman hater.

[ClydeCoulter]

Does this asshole go anywhere without an "official" sash?

I read, at first, asshole as mutherfucker...don't know why.

[supermario21]

Lol, that's why I put that picture up, because someone else has a pic with him sporting a "Congressman" sash floating around here.

[mad cow]

In 2009,72 people in the USA made over 50 million dollars a year. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/26/making-more-than-50-million-per-year.aspx

Let's say they averaged enough where 45% of their income equaled $30 million.That's $2,160,000,000.Divide that by the 310,000,000 people in the USA,and that is about $6.72 for each of us.So much for the Obamaphone.

Of course we could just use the money to pay day by day fedgov expenses.In 2011,they spent $10.46 billion a day so that would cover almost five hours of fedgov spending and all those evil rich people would be on the next plane out of here.
Specifically for 2011, the projected spending is $10.46 Billion per day. This is based on the projection of Federal Spending of $3.818 Trillion for the year.
Ref: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals


bxm042:Note, by "extremely wealthy" I mean much more than just a million. A million is nothing nowadays. Try 50 million.

[TheTexan]

In 2009,72 people in the USA made over 50 million dollars a year. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/26/making-more-than-50-million-per-year.aspx

Let's say they averaged enough where 45% of their income equaled $30 million.That's $2,160,000,000.Divide that by the 310,000,000 people in the USA,and that is about $6.72 for each of us.So much for the Obamaphone.

Of course we could just use the money to pay day by day fedgov expenses.In 2011,they spent $10.46 billion a day so that would cover almost five hours of fedgov spending and all those evil rich people would be on the next plane out of here.

I was referring to net worth > 50 mill, not yearly income. You also missed the point, by... I don't know, maybe 100 miles. It's a question of morality, not of numbers & statistics.

[parocks]

And zero taxes for those over a billion!

I saw that too, that can't be right.

[dillo]

If you go back to the years leading up to our nation's founding, you will find that Americans were, and had to be, shall you say, more aggressive... with their justice.

Similar to how it was during that time, the justice system simply won't work until this nation gets fixed. And this nation won't get fixed until people assert justice.

There should still be a trial. But that trial doesn't need to be conventional.

And it's not just theft. It's also fraud, and I would also say it's treason. Treason is still a capital offense, last time I checked.
when the status quo is tyranny, you have no chance.

[DamianTV]

Still trying to tax and spend our way out of debt without creating jobs or creating anything in this country.

These arent Democrats, they're Socialists. They are the embodiment of the great lie of everyone living at the expense of everyone else with no one doing one bit of work.

[tod evans]

Repless:o


Still trying to tax and spend our way out of debt without creating jobs or creating anything in this country.

These arent Democrats, they're Socialists. They are the embodiment of the great lie of everyone living at the expense of everyone else with no one doing one bit of work.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Schakowsky pointed to a Congressional Research Service study that said raising tax rates on the wealthy has "little to no impact on macroeconomic growth."


Or they could just move. They're rich. They could go most anywhere, and honestly other nations are becoming far friendlier places to do business.

+rep

That's exactly why the study is wrong. Such taxation would only cause capital flight, which is exactly why it would have an impact on macroeconomic growth.

I haven't read the study, but I don't know where you'd find an economist who would agree with that conclusion.

[Christian Liberty]

After thinking about this, I could maybe justify taking money from fractional reserve bankers (NOTE: NOT "All rich people") to very temporarily shore up entitlements rather than killing them immediately.

[EBounding]

Yes, let's tax the people who are the most capable of avoiding taxes. This is just the step before they say,

"Welp, we TRIED taxing the rich, but it wasn't enough. Now it's time for YOU to pay your fair share, Citizen."

[Brian4Liberty]

Bill Gates earned his money fairly...

Are you absolutely, 100% sure about that?

[Christian Liberty]

Are you absolutely, 100% sure about that?

I'm not 100% sure of anything. I do know that Bill Gates created a product that people wanted, and they bought it. Very different from making money by manipulating money through fractional reserve banking...

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm not 100% sure of anything. I do know that Bill Gates created a product that people wanted, and they bought it. Very different from making money by manipulating money through fractional reserve banking...

Some people would say that he stole products more than creating them. There's a long line of former business associates who would say he's done things worthy of lawsuits.

[tod evans]

+rep

That's exactly why the study is wrong. Such taxation would only cause capital flight, which is exactly why it would have an impact on macroeconomic growth.

I haven't read the study, but I don't know where you'd find an economist who would agree with that conclusion.


I know a few "monied" people who are currently quietly liquidating their real-property in exchange for movable assets.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I know a few "monied" people who are currently quietly liquidating their real-property in exchange for movable assets.


I know very few "monied" people. I was expecting this to turn into one of those "mainstream" economists - versus austrian economist - discussions. Most people here don't understand that there must be 70-90% overlap. (source: I just made that shit up.)

I'm not surprised by your statement at all, because when it comes down to it, real property is only yours to the extent that you can defend it. My guess is that those people are expecting not only a monetary collapse, but also the legal framework collapse that will go along with it.

[tod evans]

I know very few "monied" people. I was expecting this to turn into one of those "mainstream" economists - versus austrian economist - discussions. Most people here don't understand that there must be 70-90% overlap. (source: I just made that shit up.)

I'm not surprised by your statement at all, because when it comes down to it, real property is only yours to the extent that you can defend it. My guess is that those people are expecting not only a monetary collapse, but also the legal framework collapse that will go along with it.

Throughout history gold and gems have been used to transfer wealth "under cover"...

Given the digital monitoring of all financial transactions under the guise of drug enforcement people have resorted to the tried and true methods of years gone by...

This whole idea of sticking it to the wealthy is quite foolish, those folks didn't obtain or retain wealth by exhibiting blatant stupidity..

[nobody's_hero]

Folks they're just getting ready for when inflation hits hard.

Boobus Americanus: "Yeah yeah raise taxes on everyone making a million dollars!"

Something happens blah blah blah . . . . *Poof* INFLATION!

Boobus Americanus: "Oh wow I'm making a lot of money! But for some reason chewing gum is like, really expensive."

IRS: "Pay up."
------------------------------------------

The thing about socialism and wealth redistribution is that you don't have to be the richest guy on the planet to have your wealth redistributed. You just have to be slightly less poor than the guy next to you.

If the only things you have of value are two shoestrings and the guy next to you has one, they'll take one of yours and cut it in half. Democrats always see it as affecting only the rich but what happens when they become the "rich" (definition of rich: slightly better off than the next schmuck).