UK example of why high tax rates on the rich don't work

[Danzig]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...-80s.html?_r=0


i am amazed at the people who consistently defend the rich, especially the very rich, and think they have it so bad tax wise.
no, they don't.

everyone, especially the top income earners, are paying less in taxes. and as those burdens have decreased on 'job creators', can someone explain to me why the supposed job creation that would occur hasn't? the top rates have declined steadily. so why hasn't employment increased steadily as a result?

[cal828]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...-80s.html?_r=0


i am amazed at the people who consistently defend the rich, especially the very rich, and think they have it so bad tax wise.
no, they don't.

everyone, especially the top income earners, are paying less in taxes. and as those burdens have decreased on 'job creators', can someone explain to me why the supposed job creation that would occur hasn't? the top rates have declined steadily. so why hasn't employment increased steadily as a result?

And lo a great silence fell up on the earth. I think the answer is the great corporations giveth and they taketh away.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...-80s.html?_r=0


i am amazed at the people who consistently defend the rich, especially the very rich, and think they have it so bad tax wise.
no, they don't.

everyone, especially the top income earners, are paying less in taxes. and as those burdens have decreased on 'job creators', can someone explain to me why the supposed job creation that would occur hasn't? the top rates have declined steadily. so why hasn't employment increased steadily as a result?

Shuuuuush.... We are just supposed to believe this. Not question it. Even though 40 years of history backs up the fact that lowering the taxes on the ultra rich does nothing to stimulate job growth.

If you do question it, you'll get the "We will need to lay people off if you raise my taxes" line.

Talk about living off handouts and entitlements. They are the most egregious.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...-80s.html?_r=0


i am amazed at the people who consistently defend the rich, especially the very rich, and think they have it so bad tax wise.
no, they don't.

everyone, especially the top income earners, are paying less in taxes. and as those burdens have decreased on 'job creators', can someone explain to me why the supposed job creation that would occur hasn't? the top rates have declined steadily. so why hasn't employment increased steadily as a result?

Ah but they are creating jobs. In the fine print it states Jobs Created not necassarily in the United States.

[Danzig]

and no movement as yet on stopping the automatic tax/spending changes.

obama says we must increase revenue and decrease spending. but apparently repubs are against the increases, democrats are against the decreases. lol doesn't leave much room for 'compromise' does it?


http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...ng-matter?lite

that's on the white house offer to avert the pending 'disaster'.


After Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s individual meetings yesterday with congressional leaders in the so-called “fiscal cliff” negotiations, Republicans leaked to reporters what the Obama White House is offering: 1) $1.6 trillion in tax increases and revenues, 2) a permanent end to Congress’ control of the debt limit(i don't care for this suggestion), 3) additional stimulus of at least $50 billion, and 4) $400 billion in savings in Medicare and other programs to be worked out next year. Republican aides dismissed the offer as “unbalanced” and “unreasonable,” NBC’s Luke Russert notes. A House GOP aide adds to First Read that the $1.6 trillion is TWICE the revenue that President Obama campaigned on (by not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy); that the debt-limit demand is a “pipe dream”; and that the revenue in the offer ($1.6 trillion) is four times greater than the spending cuts ($400 billion). The Weekly Standard even reports that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (not a fan of his!) “burst into laughter” after Geithner offered the plan.

[Danzig]

and then there's boehner ( )


http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...?lite=obinsite


Anyone thinking Republicans might be ready to accept extending the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 now, think again.

House Speaker John Boehner (R), the man at the center of negotiations with President Obama, today rejected Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole’s suggestion to pass an extension of tax cuts for 98 percent of people, declare victory, and go home.

[dellinger63]

The top 1% pay 30% of the income tax.

I'd say they're doing more than their fair share.

We have become so reliant on the Federal government for everything from viagra to abortions, common sense no longer exists.

Stop the spending (leaks) first, then start bailing out. Bailing a boat without first fixing the leaks does not work and neither does taxing now and cutting later. To the cliff we go! Sickening how spoiled, needy and weak we've become. Our poor our rich when compared to the rest of the world.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The top 1% pay 30% of the income tax.

I'd say they're doing more than their fair share.

We have become so reliant on the Federal government for everything from viagra to abortions, common sense no longer exists.

Stop the spending (leaks) first, then start bailing out. Bailing a boat without first fixing the leaks does not work and neither does taxing now and cutting later. To the cliff we go! Sickening how spoiled, needy and weak we've become. Our poor our rich when compared to the rest of the world.

the top 1%, as well as many of the rest of us, pay less in taxes now than ever. funny, it's a 'fair' share, but it's lower than it's been at any time in the last century for them.
dell, i'm sure they appreciate your concern for them.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the top 1%, as well as many of the rest of us, pay less in taxes now than ever. funny, it's a 'fair' share, but it's lower than it's been at any time in the last century for them.
dell, i'm sure they appreciate your concern for them.

But if you don't make it LOWER yet then they will not create jobs.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The top 1% pay 30% of the income tax.

I'd say they're doing more than their fair share.

Except that the top 1 percent own 42 percent of the nation's wealth, so in fact, no, they aren't doing their fair share; they're living off the backs of the rest of us. There's nothing like being rich to make a person expect free stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...t-one-percent/

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Except that the top 1 percent own 42 percent of the nation's wealth, so in fact, no, they aren't doing their fair share; they're living off the backs of the rest of us. There's nothing like being rich to make a person expect free stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...t-one-percent/

so they should pay 42% of the taxes, instead of 30! excellent point.