Taxing the Rich

[+joc]

I seriously do not understand why everyone is so focused on Obama. Obama is a tool. I think I have the whole thing figured out. The Super Rich don't really care what their tax rate is...because it is an illusion...they are still super rich and always will be and there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do to make them not super rich. But, there are a lot of very rich people these days...way to many...and they are usurping alot of the power that used to be only in the hands of the super rich. Way to many millionaires and even billionaires...so, they need to thin the crowd. Tax the hell out of them...it is all about regaining the control over everyone else. Control. That is the name of the game. It isn't about money...it isn't about Taxes...it is about Control. Control. That's it. Obama is a tool. The Whitehouse is a tool. The congress is a tool. You and I are tools. Tools of the Elite UnNamed Super Rich who control the Banking Industry world wide. They have always been in control. They will always be in control. And this is all a game to them...the game is Control.

[RavenHawk]

I seriously do not understand why everyone is so focused on Obama. Obama is a tool. I think I have the whole thing figured out. The Super Rich don't really care what their tax rate is...because it is an illusion...they are still super rich and always will be and there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do to make them not super rich. But, there are a lot of very rich people these days...way to many...and they are usurping alot of the power that used to be only in the hands of the super rich. Way to many millionaires and even billionaires...so, they need to thin the crowd. Tax the hell out of them...it is all about regaining the control over everyone else. Control. That is the name of the game. It isn't about money...it isn't about Taxes...it is about Control. Control. That's it. Obama is a tool. The Whitehouse is a tool. The congress is a tool. You and I are tools. Tools of the Elite UnNamed Super Rich who control the Banking Industry world wide. They have always been in control. They will always be in control. And this is all a game to them...the game is Control.

You’re starting to catch on. It is all about control. But I really wonder who the tool is? Is it Obama or the powerful elite behind the scenes? The number of wealthy has nothing to do with it. We should all be aspiring to improving our status in life. We all get richer but the uber rich will still get even wealthier. So what??

I’ve tried to refrain from this path of discussion. But Hitler was considered a tool until he turned the tables. I really think that Obama is *A* Nicolai Carpathia like character. No, not the anti Christ, just a dictator wannabe with demon like charisma. He’s well studied in the Constitution and knows how to dismantle it rather than defend it. That’s why I am focused on Obama. He is a natural enemy to this nation and the fox has the keys to the hen house.

This fiscal cliff is but a ploy to grab control. The GOP is screwed either way but if they stand their ground, he’ll know he’s got a fight on his hands and that is what you want. Give him the fight and keep him occupied. Don’t give him the opportunity to easily move his pieces.

Raising taxes on the rich this time won’t bother the rich (it’s drop in the bucket) or hurt job growth. But it does set a trend to raise more taxes in the near future where it will effect job growth and raise taxes on the rest of us. As I’ve said to hide the extra taxes for Obamacare.

It’s all political games and we the people can get involved and nullify the power of Obama and his backers by simply voting out the incumbent. By doing that, the real power stays with the people and not the politician. We need to hold this Administration’s feet to the fire to cut spending and support the GOP in giving this Administration the fight of its life. We do that and Obama can do nothing else but do what is best for this country. At mid terms, vote out the incumbents. Then elect a new President and then vote them out at the next election. Party won’t matter. We do that and the powerful elite cannot usurp the power of this country. If the politicians are amateurs then the elite can’t retain them for any lengthy period of time.

I don’t want to vilify the rich, but even among the rich, there exist the upper elite or the Bavarian Illuminati. And the way to deal with them is to identify them and take away their power by boycotting which affects their bottom line. But that’s difficult to do when the sheeple are easily bought with trinkets (bread and circuses) or in today’s lingo, Entitlements and welfare. It’s amazing to see how much power we give the government by taking what it gives us. We need to take the power back.

[F3SS]

This fiscal cliff is but a ploy to grab control. The GOP is screwed either way but if they stand their ground, he’ll know he’s got a fight on his hands and that is what you want. Give him the fight and keep him occupied. Don’t give him the opportunity to easily move his pieces.

That's a great line. you hear Obama and sheep crowing about how they have a mandate and it's time to let them do what the people voted for but 47 million people voted for the GOP to do what they're doing. I don't think 53 million people is a decisive mandate against 47 million peoples wishes. You ever see the movie 300? Just because you're outnumbered doesn't mean you're going down easy.

[ninjadude]

That's what the politicians are doing,

No it's not. The sooner you understand that the better. Your household finances and anecdotes are now how government economic policy works.

[+DieChecker]

I seriously do not understand why everyone is so focused on Obama. Obama is a tool. I think I have the whole thing figured out. The Super Rich don't really care what their tax rate is...because it is an illusion...they are still super rich and always will be and there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do to make them not super rich. But, there are a lot of very rich people these days...way to many...and they are usurping alot of the power that used to be only in the hands of the super rich. Way to many millionaires and even billionaires...so, they need to thin the crowd. Tax the hell out of them...it is all about regaining the control over everyone else. Control. That is the name of the game. It isn't about money...it isn't about Taxes...it is about Control. Control. That's it. Obama is a tool. The Whitehouse is a tool. The congress is a tool. You and I are tools. Tools of the Elite UnNamed Super Rich who control the Banking Industry world wide. They have always been in control. They will always be in control. And this is all a game to them...the game is Control.

So the rich are trying to knock down their closest competition, using Obama? That is not bad as far as conspiricy theorys go. Kind of like when medieval lords would wipe out merchant houses that were getting to influential/rich.

[ninjadude]

So you think that the top 10% paying 70% of the tax burden is fair? I'm sure that you wouldn't lose sleep if their tax bracket was 90%, eh?

Just because there was a 90% tax bracket in the 50s does not mean that we have the same situation now that we did then that allowed such a policy.

Oh but you pine for the 50's don't you?!! Of course it's fair. Those most able to pay, need to pay more.

[F3SS]

No it's not. The sooner you understand that the better. Your household finances and anecdotes are now how government economic policy works.

You're wrong man. Math is math and it's factual, not convenient. So the gov doesn't spend more than it pulls in? The gov doesn't ask for more to pay down a debt? I shouldn't be upset that when they don't pay it down? In ten years we will be another $10T in debt and in ten years $75B from the rich is going to make a difference? You avoid everything by saying government is the be all end all answer. I have no idea why I even like you. You add nothing of substance, ever. And wiki links aren't substance. I want to know how your brain rationalizes things.

Oh but you pine for the 50's don't you?!! Of course it's fair. Those most able to pay, need to pay more.

But they do. They pay more than everybody exponentially. When is enough enough? When they are taxed out of their fortune and the poor have enough of their money to be middle class and then everybody is "middle class" and everybody is the same and no one has more than anyone else and everything is fair and equal and liberal fairy dust rains from the sky?

[ninjadude]

You're wrong man. Math is math and it's factual, not convenient. So the gov doesn't spend more than it pulls in? The gov doesn't ask for more to pay down a debt? I shouldn't be upset that when they don't pay it down? In ten years we will be another $10T in debt and in ten years $75B from the rich is going to make a difference?

Yes it does spend more than it recieves. It's called deficit spending. Has been done for, well most of the last century. No, you should not be upset. During a downturn in the economy is the worst time to be "paying it down". 10 years. Where did you get that number - I know, pulled it out of someplace. Any number you come up with is arbitrary. And yes the 75B will make a difference. Small but still there it is.

But they do. They pay more than everybody exponentially. When is enough enough? When they are taxed out of their fortune and the poor have enough of their money to be middle class and then everybody is "middle class"

enough?!! They paid NINETY PERCENT 90% in the GLoRIous fifities. They have gotten off with huge breaks since then. The MINOR increase being proposed is nothing. And you're quite wrong in a spectacular way about the poor being middle class.

[F3SS]

Yes it does spend more than it recieves. It's called deficit spending. Has been done for, well most of the last century. No, you should not be upset. During a downturn in the economy is the worst time to be "paying it down". 10 years. Where did you get that number - I know, pulled it out of someplace. Any number you come up with is arbitrary. And yes the 75B will make a difference. Small but still there it is.

enough?!! They paid NINETY PERCENT 90% in the GLoRIous fifities. They have gotten off with huge breaks since then. The MINOR increase being proposed is nothing. And you're quite wrong in a spectacular way about the poor being middle class.

So you admit the difference is small but can you admit that it is also meaningless when the over budget spending never stops?

So not paying 90% of your income is not paying enough? God, I'd hate to be rich in your world. Who's the one pining for the 50's here? And the part about the poor is not a statement about today. It's what happens when people like you run the country.

Edited December 11, 2012 by -Mr_Fess-

[+DieChecker]

During a downturn in the economy is the worst time to be "paying it down".

How are we supposed to know when the Downturn is over? Obama's advisors said the Recession was over in the Sping of 2009. And here we are 3 1/2 years latter and we supposedly are still in a Downturn.

If you ask a Liberal they will always tell you we are in a downturn, that way they can justify spending of untold billions... and now trillions of dollars.

[+joc]

So the rich are trying to knock down their closest competition, using Obama? That is not bad as far as conspiricy theorys go. Kind of like when medieval lords would wipe out merchant houses that were getting to influential/rich.

Not the 'rich'. This is not a Conspiracy Theory...this is fact...there are some on this planet who are not just rich, I called them Super Rich, but in fact they are not even that ...they are Elite Wealth...old money my friend. If you can get your head around confiscating the wealth of 'the rich' and how that doesn't affect them, then you can get your head around the whole Control Issue that governs the thinking of this Class.

[Tiggs]

How are we supposed to know when the Downturn is over?

The same way that everyone else does. By looking at the numbers for the USA's GDP Growth.

[Yamato]

The GDP growth they report with zero percent interest rates and another trillion dollars of debt on the books every year?

How about the GDP once interest rates start to rise beyond the control of the bond buying's diminishing returns to keep them at zero? Then we'll know the downturn has just begun.

[Tiggs]

The GDP growth they report with zero percent interest rates and another trillion dollars of debt on the books every year?

How about the GDP once interest rates start to rise beyond the control of the bond buying's diminishing returns to keep them at zero? Then we'll know the downturn has just begun.

There's only one GDP.

[+DieChecker]

The same way that everyone else does. By looking at the numbers for the USA's GDP Growth.

OK. So by this site...

http://www.multpl.co...-adjusted/table

The GDP has been going up for 3 years

See a graph of the numbers...

So then how many years of Growth are needed before we are NOT in a "Downturn"? How many years before we start to cut back and let the "upturn" instead fill the coffers, as Keynesian economics demands?

That graphs slope does not look so different from 2001 to 2004 then it does from 2010 to 2012

[questionmark]

OK. So by this site...

http://www.multpl.co...-adjusted/table

The GDP has been going up for 3 years

See a graph of the numbers...

So then how many years of Growth are needed before we are NOT in a "Downturn"? How many years before we start to cut back and let the "upturn" instead fill the coffers, as Keynesian economics demands?

That graphs slope does not look so different from 2001 to 2004 then it does from 2010 to 2012

Several at more than 3% growth (as 2.5-4% is GDP created by new debts...which is not really growth). A normal country is in (real) recession when the GDP goes negative. Given of the loose treatment of debts (government, private and commercial) in the US anything below 3% is an actual recession...even in a good year.

[Tiggs]

So then how many years of Growth are needed before we are NOT in a "Downturn"? How many years before we start to cut back and let the "upturn" instead fill the coffers, as Keynesian economics demands?

By raising tax rates?

Take a wild guess.

[+DieChecker]

Several at more than 3% growth (as 2.5-4% is GDP created by new debts...which is not really growth). A normal country is in (real) recession when the GDP goes negative. Given of the loose treatment of debts (government, private and commercial) in the US anything below 3% is an actual recession...even in a good year.

So we've not been doing really well since... when? A long azz time??

How can Keynesian economics work, when spending needs to occur always? When there is never a Upswing to provide funds to actually Fund the Downturn spending??

[+DieChecker]

By raising tax rates?

Take a wild guess.

I really don't know, that is why I asked.

I'm going to guess (using current budget practices)... Never?

[Tiggs]

I really don't know, that is why I asked.

I'm going to guess (using current budget practices)... Never?

Allegedly - there have been Democratic plans to raise tax rates recently.

Hint: This entire thread.

[ninjadude]

It's an uneven recovery and that's the problem. I don't believe a single measurement relates. The rich and corporations and wall street are making money hand over fist. The middle class is unemployed and struggling. There is a huge income imbalance. This is why Obama won't budge on increasing taxes on the rich and tax cuts for the middle class and won't cut SS and Medicare. If I were the DOD, I would be polishing my resume.

[Yamato]

There's only one GDP.

Okay? And it's either borrowed and printed and made flimsy from the government, or it's reliable and sustainable and not subject to these massive business cycles and bubbles bursting that we're still learning the causality of much too slowly to stop government from doing it again.

questionmark said "A normal country is in (real) recession when the GDP goes negative. Given of the loose treatment of debts (government, private and commercial) in the US anything below 3% is an actual recession...even in a good year".

If we're getting 3% with zero percent interest rates, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out we're going to get much worse with higher interest rates. What's not sustainable are zero percent interest rates, so why take a GDP figure under that unsustainable climate seriously when its days are numbered? Are we only concerned about this quarter and next's, or can we have the long range vision to look down the road and see what's in store there?

[Tiggs]

Okay? And it's either borrowed and printed and made flimsy from the government, or it's reliable and sustainable and not subject to these massive business cycles and bubbles bursting that we're still learning the causality of much too slowly to stop government from doing it again.

questionmark said "A normal country is in (real) recession when the GDP goes negative. Given of the loose treatment of debts (government, private and commercial) in the US anything below 3% is an actual recession...even in a good year".

The annual increase in GDP averaged 3.4% for the US for around a hundred years, up to 1980.

If we're getting 3% with zero percent interest rates, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out we're going to get much worse with higher interest rates. What's not sustainable are zero percent interest rates, so why take a GDP figure under that unsustainable climate seriously when its days are numbered? Are we only concerned about this quarter and next's, or can we have the long range vision to look down the road and see what's in store there?

If it's unsustainable, then perhaps you can explain why Japan haven't had an interest rate higher than 1% since 1995?

As far as I'm aware - No-one's particularly expecting the US interest rate to be anything other than zero prior to mid-2015 at the earliest.

Regardless of whether you're using monetary policy or fiscal policy to tweak the economy's output - GDP growth is GDP growth.

Or let me put it another way:

If the GDP was still declining - the US would be in a depression and we really would all be stuffed.

[Yamato]

The annual increase in GDP averaged 3.4% for the US for around a hundred years, up to 1980.

If it's unsustainable, then perhaps you can explain why Japan haven't had an interest rate higher than 1% since 1995?

As far as I'm aware - No-one's particularly expecting the US interest rate to be anything other than zero prior to mid-2015 at the earliest.

Regardless of whether you're using monetary policy or fiscal policy to tweak the economy's output - GDP growth is GDP growth.

Or let me put it another way:

If the GDP was still declining - the US would be in a depression and we really would all be stuffed.

Declining growth isn't a recession. Negative growth is.

Japan has suffered through two lost decades in a fiscal trap of economic stagflation, and now we're following in their footsteps. Unsustainable stagflation is not good enough. Especially when the reason for it is killing the very essence of private enterprise in this country with a ghoulish blend of government and business in bed together making the markets with force, and with capital it didn't earn domestically but borrowed against with foreign credit.

[Tiggs]

Declining growth isn't a recession. Negative growth is.

Correct. Declining Growth from an initial negative position, however, will quickly lead to a Depression.

Japan has suffered through two lost decades in a fiscal trap of economic stagflation, and now we're following in their footsteps. Unsustainable stagflation is not good enough.

Unsustainable stagflation would be a bad thing. Fortunately, since inflation has yet to even reach the historic average - and since current projections seem to have it at under 2% in the mid-term - I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over it, anytime soon.