had a top rate of income tax at 19 shillings and sixpence in the pound
once (20 shillings in the pound). My guess is we've been conned over
the years into believing capitalism was what was going on rather than
banking oligarchy. Somehow we swallowed the story that we need the
rich and what they do. I think most of us don't want big government,
but have forgotten that concentrated, accumulated wealth becomes that.
The rich should now be taxed on wealth - but to do this we have to do
something about capital flight, tax havens (over half are British) and
the ludicrous and parasitic financial services.
It strikes me that all the threats (and actions) of the rich
concerning capital flight are treason. I no longer believe western
(neo classical) economics work but even within this it's obvious we
need to tax and spend. I can't fault Orn's view.
On Aug 2, 9:25 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sadly, the innate drive for the Good implied by the US Constitution's
> Preamble [1] … to "promote the general welfare"… has been twisted,
> distorted and reinterpreted using the basest of drives. Other
> countries also address this notion of general welfare. [2] Back to the
> USA, the notion of general welfare is mentioned a second time in the
> Constitution, referring directly to taxation. [3]
>
> As mentioned in the article above: "Of all the limitations upon the
> power to tax and spend, the General Welfare Clause appears to have
> achieved notoriety as one of the most contentious." [3]
>
> For the current mantra of protecting the 'haves' from the 'have nots'
> by reducing or eliminating taxes from the former and continuing to
> impose and increase them on the latter…'no new taxes' and 'do not tax
> the job creators', an examination without using the impassioned
> rhetoric and hyperbole will find a few facts.
>
> During the zenith of US economic might, after the 2nd World War…the
> late 1940s, 1950s and into the 19 60s, a period when unemployment was
> less than today [4] and taxation percentages of the wealthy was at its
> highest [5], it could be clearly inferred that taxing the wealthy at a
> higher rate actually helps.
>
> Actually Allan, I think that 35% is way too low. An anecdotal aside,
> something I've said more than once here over the years, my father was
> in the 91% tax bracket back then and didn't complain and we lived
> quite well thank you very much!
>
> As for what I can only guess was tongue in cheek commentary by rigsy
> chiding liberals about not giving away their money, many of the
> wealthy actually DO give away their money. Bill Gates and Warren
> Buffett come to mind. [ 6]
>
> Quoting Buffett:
> "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class,
> that's making war, and we're winning." [7]
> Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1
> million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends &
> capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making
> much less money. "How can this be fair?" Buffet asked, regarding how
> little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. "How can this be
> right?" [7]
> He also is for the inheritance tax, renamed for misdirection reasons
> by a few as the 'death tax'. [7]
>
> As a last commentary, corporations by law cost more to run since a
> profit must be always the goal. In general, it is much cheaper to have
> things like insurance, the military, hospitals, roads, schools etc.
> run by the public sector. There are no bloated CEOs nor are there
> countless stock holders demanding dividends and actually trying to
> make a living and survive by sucking off the tits of those who support
> corporations, whether the tax payers (when corporate welfare is
> enacted as law…as has become more and more common here) or the public
> in general when legalized corporatism isn't required.
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
> [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
> [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
> [4]http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp
> [5]http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/
> [6]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/04/us-billionaires-half...http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/16/us-philanthropy-buffett-gat...
> [7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Taxes
>
> On Aug 2, 8:03 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hmm, so how would you fund public goods? Voluntarily?
>
> > On Aug 2, 3:09 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Who would invest under your system?
>
> > > What about the government reducing its expenditures by 35%?
>
> > > Nothing's to stop wealthy Liberals/Democrats from sending their excess
> > > wealth to their government(s)-federal, state, local. Why don't
> > > they? :-)
>
> > > Immigrants send money to their relatives also. I thought the world was
> > > flat, at last!
>
> > > Why would people turn their labor/income over to a bloated/
> > > spendthrift/ incompetant government like robots/slaves?
>
> > > On Aug 2, 2:31 am, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Being american,, I think taxes are necessary but taxes need to be dependent
> > > > income.. the greater the income the greater the taxes.. and removal of all
> > > > tax exemptions especially on capital gains.....
>
> > > > I am beginning to think that a petition needs to be circulated placing
> > > > a mandatory 35% on income over $250,000.oo with no exemptions.
>
> > > > That would go a long way to helping the relive the national debt..
>
> > > > I also think all nation should have a 35% tax on money leaving a nation..
> > > > Allan
>
> > > > --
> > > > (
> > > > )
> > > > I_D Allan
>
> > > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
> > > > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment