Super Rich paying less in taxes

[Gene Scarborough]

Would this be more evidence we need TERM LIMITS??????

If we put in a 3-term limit as we have for the President with a 2-term limit, at least they have to be bought anew and we stand a chance of returning to truely representative government envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Their idea was of a volunteer representative---NOT A PROFESSIONAL LIFETIME POLITICIAN---having enough respect in his District to accurately reflect the wishs of his constituents.

I tried to communicate clearly with both my NC Senators (Burr [R] and Hagan [D]) with TOTAL LACK OF RESPONSE! As a small business owner I had some suggestions relative to how FDR did the first move toward the largest number of small businesses in the Depression = Family Farmer. The market was flooded with goods bringing virtually nothing to the farmer. My grandaddy had a porch full of cotton bales he could not sell for enough money to even pay the mule feed bill. He agreed not to plant a new crop and got paid as if he had finished his croping.

"Strangely," he went right downtown and paid every merchant he owed--and walked out with money still in his pocket. They paid their suppliers and ordered more goods (week 2). The suppliers called back in their workers and production resumed (week 3). In a month a single dollar paid the farmer circulated into 4-5 levels of the economy. It means $1 = $5!!! SO SIMPLE!!

The billions of our tax money used to bail out GM / AIG / Wall Street / Banks / etc. is still sitting in their books. They ALL have fancy tax accountants / lawyers / advisors so they sure must be a lot smarter than my deceased grandfather---who only wanted to pay his bills and get on with life!!!

[Gene Scarborough]

Here is a report on the results of tax cuts to the wealthy:



Open the link and see a graphic on the the expenditures on war and cuts in taxes which should concern you greatly!

[ET]

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

Everyone has a "theory" as to how to run the economy. Republicans, starting with Reagan, foisted the "Trickle Down" lie on us. It stated that if you favor the rich it will trickle down to the poor. More people will be hired so the common man will benefit. Just how many rich corporate owners started a new business employing Americans in the last 20 years??? Rocky Mount, NC, is full of vacant industrial manufacturing buildings--now empty--because production was moved to cheap labor foreign countries.

The PRACTICAL results we have seen PROVEN is that the rich have ways to keep their money and outsource to foreign countries which give them tax incentives. Wal-Mart sells mostly foreign-manufactured goods! Therefore, others scoff at the 36% Corporate Tax rate in our borders and locate their businesses offshore. Even Wal-Mart moves in hundreds of storage units so they don't have to count it as inventory being taxes! The Oil companies and large Corporations still here have been exposed over the last few months for paying $0 in taxes while the working man has his deductions taken each paycheck and sent to the IRS. The average worker goes to a simpleton tax preparer like H&R Block while the rich employ high-dollar Accountants and Tax Lawyers to further minimize their tax bite.

If Trickle Down Economics were real we would have paid 61% less for a GM product since taxpayers owned just that much of them in the bailouts of 4 years ago. Now we still own 31% of GM! Has the price of their vehicles dropped on red cent????

Has the price of oil gone up or down? Who is highly known for Oil connections and ushering the ben Laden family quickly from this country after 9/11? Do the Republicans rejoice in the continued Recession to make them more electable in 2012? Meanwhile, EVERY small businessman is suffering a 30-70% reduction in earnings while the war in the Middle East sucks billions every day from our soil. I could use just half the cost of a Tomahawk Missile to run my business well on $500,000 this year. Will I get it from a government favoring the rich and granting great sums to banks and industry which are keeping it all to boost their "bottom line???"

Remember, this crash took place under Bush---and not Obama. They had Federal enforcement and regulation authority to jail those who renewed Derivatives and lied about their Corporate wealth to investors who, on average, lost 40% of their portfolio value. Most such rules and regulations were formed after the Depression under the Roosevelt Administration. Twice now the economy has failed under a Republican Administration! Coincidence or lack of fair treatment to the working class???

My daddy put it simply: "The major difference between a Democrat and a Republican is that a Republican is just a rich Democrat who now wants to keep it all!"

I'm Gene Scarborough and I approve this message!

[Sandy]

The GNP of this country, and its relative wealth, creates enough revenue in one year to give the government a $4 trillion surplus at the relatively low average tax rate of 10%. Apply that to the national debt and it goes away in fairly short order. So it is obvious that someone is not paying their share of taxes. Since Vermont's Senator Sanders uncovered hundreds of corporations who are not only avoiding taxes, but receiving subsidies, I'd say that's probably where the shortfall could be made up.

The fact that each of the past three Republican administrations put policies into place that led to relatively deep, severe recessions also says something, along with the record roaring of the economy through the Clinton years.

The problem is that big businesses have the money to manipulate elections. Gosh, I can't imagine how much the oil companies are spending on their commercials telling us that we need to tell congress not to add new energy taxes.

About a week ago, an insurance company spokesperson came to talk to us about the new plan we had purchased. The average savings to each policyholder, as a direct result of "Obamacare" is over $2,000 a year, since we are no longer charged for preventive health care, some prescription drug coverage also has no copay, and the deductibles are reduced by almost half as a result of an employer contribution paid for each use of the policy rather than on the premium. But you have people who will directly benefit from all kinds of health care reforms under the Obama plan who are convinced by paid propaganda that it isn't so.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

Some wise observations in my opinion. I'm still looking for someone who can clearly define exactly what "Obamacare" means. Republicans use it in a derisive way, but we are the ONLY COUNTRY in the civilized world without some kind of public healthcare system. The practical results are indicated in your experience as positive. Personally, I fail to see why any DR. should be perceived as a god worthy of having, within 3-5 years, a main house / another at the beach and another in the mountains / a car for each member of the family which all happen to be "top of the line luxery."

Our costs are outrageous and insurance premiums reflect such. Did you know that Blue Cross-Blue Shield is a company conceived by Doctors who used to treat people regardless of ability to pay and sometimes were owed so much their widows wanted a better way to collect fees from the Insurance Company rather than the patients themselves???? It was just another way to make sure the Dr. got his money whether he helped or not.

I had a recent experience with a lady needing a stint due to cardiac artery blockage. Believe it or not, in Ghana where she lives, the procedure cost $1,500!!!! She got the same good care and successful surgery using common techniques utilized here---But the cost here would be somewhere between $15,000 - 150,000. Do the math and see the difference in cost for American care vs. that given elsewhere around the world. Somewhere someone is getting more than rich with our pharmaceuticals / hospital costs / Dr. fees / etc. It's just another "liscense to steal" among "highly paid professionals" like Lawyers who sue Doctors / Doctors who are now mostly specialists / other people like Hospital Administrators so highly paid they don't know how their patients live these days.

[ET]

Gene, there's no such thing as "trickle down" economics. Never has been. That's political rhetoric, not economics. You won't find "trickle down" as a topic in a legitimate economics book. You can ramble on all you want about oil or corporate taxes or jobs moving overseas, but the fact remains that you can't expect to not have a deficit when your income increases by a factor of 23 but your spending increases by a factor of 42.

*******
Sandy, I would very much like to read anything an genuine economist - not a class-warfare political operative like SOCIALIST Sanders - has written to support your claim. And I'm sorry, Sandy, but Clinton inherited an economy that benefited from Reagan's policies as well as the end of the Cold War and the drop in military spending that followed it. You will also find the economy was in a recession when G.W. Bush took office....maybe not in the public's mind at that point, but as far as economists define the business cycle, Clinton handed off the a recession to Bush.

Hmmm...Sandy, maybe those "benefits" are the reason for the bad jobs report that came out today. Give it time, brother. The Law of Unintended Consequences will set in. Health care is not free. You may not be paying that cost, but someone is somewhere and it will show up in either fewer jobs if that cost is transferred to employers or in higher costs or reduced services elsewhere. There is no free lunch.

One other thing....back to you tying Republican policies to "Hoovervilles" at one point....you still haven't provided an explanation for how the Hoover policies of protective tariffs and raising the tax rates on the rich to 62% would bring prosperity today when such policies created "Hoovervilles" back in the 1930s. I saw a headline the other day that someone proposed raising the taxes on the rich to 62%...how ironic.

[Gene Scarborough]

ET---

Lax regulation of institutions and agencies handling people's money is always the cause of an economic crash!

Speaking of Economics 101, I refer you to the Kingfisher of Amos 'n Andy fame: "If yo out go exceeds yo in come---yo up keep will be yo down fall."
The government is trying to spend its way out of "The Great Recession" which is one economic theory. However, all the spending has been our money sent to large entities who have not passed it along. They gave incredible bonuses to themselves as a reward for running their business into the ground and depriving investors of much---that's Government Subsidy of the worst kind!!!

Tax money spent should always be for the benefit of those who paid it = new roads and maintainance of infrastructure / public projects that employ local workers / NEVER a benefit for the rich already!!!

TERM LIMITS is the best answer + reduction of beaurocracy + stop all programs no longer needed (some have been in place since the Depression recovery). Government never wants to get rid of things no longer needed. I bet there are simple ways to reduce Federal Spending by 30% if somebody was using a business outlook on tough times. NEVER pay people for not working!!!

[Sandy]

[Jim]

Today, the unemployment rate is 9.1% and rising. In 2007 when the democrats took over Congress, it was 4.4%. By January of 2010 (after a year of Obama), it stood at 10%, or an increase of 127% in three years. The most realistic actual figure today is about 18%. The average unemployment rate 1932-1940 was 19.1% during the Great Depression. The economic gurus appearing everywhere on TV are claiming that the country will not climb out of recession for many years, one figure being set at 25. Blaming Bush, who had to deal with democrats 2007-09, is now passé.

As it stands, a guy with an AGI of $260,000 has to cough up $91,000 to the federal government. Under Obama’s plan, he would have been liable for nearly $103,000. That’s enough to give anyone pause with respect to investing in a business. Obama appointed a number of tax-cheats to offices in his administration, an indication that gaming the system is in order – like soaking the rich in the name of fairness.

The top tax-rate 1951-63 was more than 90% (everything over $400,000) every year. The guy who earned $1,400,000 in 1953 could expect to pay at least $920,000 in income tax, though, of course, he would figure an adjusted gross income like everyone else. This is the situation many people in this country would like to see now, the better to have life-styles they can’t afford but expect someone else to fund, using the tax system.

Current tax rates per (head of) household (adjusted gross income in dollars): 0% up to 11,950; 15% up to 45,550; 25% up to 117,650; 28% up to 190,550; 33% up to 373,650; 35% over that amount. Median household income in 2008: 52,029, with income taxes at 13,007.25 less deductions. The guy who makes a million, if not 27 times as much, will still pay many times as much in taxes for the same protections and services as the head of that median household. That seems unreasonable, but the president wanted to make that guy even further subsidize those who intend to live above their means on his dime by taking 39.6% of his income. The guy who makes a million will probably cough up close to 59 times as much as the head of the household earning 45,000. Just crunch the numbers, taking into account all deductions/loopholes (designed by Congress) for all parties.

The top tax-rate was 70% in 1980 (Reagan election) for an AGI of 215,400 and over. By 1988, while the nation prospered and the military was greatly expanded, that rate went down to 28% (29,750 and over). Reagan and the democrat Congress lowered the taxes, while George H.W. Bush and a democrat Congress raised the top rate to 31% in 1991 and Clinton and a democrat Congress raised it again to a whopping 39.6% in 1993. George Bush and a republican Congress cut it back to where it is, while the social engineers (mostly nutcase democrats and fast-asleep republicans) told every head of household he/she could own a house whether or not it was affordable, thus being the absolute and only cause of the recession as the truth set in. To his credit, George Bush tried to fight this as far back as 2003-04.

The only relief from this mess, if any at all, will come in November 2012. Until then, the U.S. will keep printing money as the value of the dollar falls. The president will keep urging Brazil to drill, baby, drill, so the U.S. can buy its oil. The career politicians will not take the hard measures needed as China forges ahead in everything with the possible exception of military technology, and they can steal most of that.

[Gene Scarborough]

Jim---

In your more-than-needed details you fail to make it as simple as your conclusion: Obama is a demon we must exorcise!

It has never been that simple. You figures for the rich are over-simplified and fail to take into account the magic of loopholes and other things their Tax Accountants and Lawers provide to them---at quite lucrative incomes for them as well.

I worked in the field of Estate Tax Planning and use of Insurance to avoid taxable gains. The Advisors who make the most always work with the Executive Income / highly paid professional folks. The old agents who worked a Debit Route with the poor and working classes actually no long exist. The lower income folks who need insurance protection the most are overlooked these days.

What would be the problem with a simplified tax code and a simple percentage of income paid to support public needs?

Taxes are unavoidable, but a far more equitable system would be preferred by me. The fact remains that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. The whole messed up wad crashed under the Bush Administration Regulators failing to do their duty and enforce laws clearly on the books since the recovery from the Great Depression---DUH!!!!

Why blame Obama for "all things corrupt" when Congress shares the blame. We do have shared powers under the Constitution the last time I checked it out---or have you forgotten that as well in your exercise in numbers????

I think much of what you say above is a distraction from the basic factors in our continued Recession--- high price of oil / use of taxpayer money to bail out rich buddies in Industry and Banking.

[Sandy]

If you read the data included with the report on unemployment that came out this week, you'd know that the increase was due largely to people who are long term unemployed coming back into the job market as a result of the upswing in private sector jobs created since the first of the year. The slow job growth in May was an adjustment number, since the acceleration in job growth was running ahead of actual economic growth. With May's numbers included, job growth since January is actually still a little bit ahead of economic growth. Since Obama took office, the stock market has seen a 50% increase in its value, recovered almost to its highest point.

Bush policy created this recession. There is no one else to blame. His budgets were in place and approved before the Democrats came into power in Congress in 2007, and by then, the downturn in the economy was already well underway. Had it not been for the Democratically controlled Congress, the second bank bailout and the stimulus package, unemployment would have exceeded depression-era levels, and the financial system and stock market would have been in ruins. Recovery would have been much further down the road than a couple of Presidential terms in office. The political climate has changed enough since the 30's that people seem to think recovery is just a matter of months, and they get impatient, thus, the GOP won back control of the house in 2010 because everyone thought the mess should have been fixed by then. They don't pay attention to the fact that Bush helped export almost 10 million American jobs, including a significant number of engineering, technology and banking/finance jobs that are not likely to come back, nor to the fact that wages declined by 10% during his term in office, and that the only category of jobs which increased during the entire eight years of his presidency were minimum wage jobs with no benefits. His "energy policy" led to market speculation and soaring gasoline prices which sucked money out of the retail sector like a gigantic vacuum. Perhaps the biggest contrast between Clinton and Bush with regard to job growth is that Clinton's policy pushed foreign auto makers to build plants in the United States and provide manufacturing jobs for American workers, while Bush policy encouraged American companies to increase their profits by exploiting the cheap labor of the third world and dragging American capital investment into India and Indonesia. Mercedes Benz, Nissan, Toyota and several others now have plants employing millions of Americans, many of them in impoverished places like Alabama and Mississippi because of Clinton economic policy, and there are more employed in plants in the US which manufacture the parts. Just down the road from me is a Mannheim plant that builds auto engines, and employs 7,800 people, opened during the Clinton administration. Bush helped open a few McDonald's restaurants.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

Accurate assessment!!!!

[ET]

Gene, I still find your view of federal economic policy to be a bit to simplistic and argued more in terms of populist rhetoric than from solid economic reasoning. Regulatory issues can play a part in an economic downturn, but they are by no means "always the cause". One can go over the and the only one with a potential regulatory issue of the kind you wish to imply is the latest one. And that one wouldn't have existed if the government was not in the business of guaranteeing mortgages and did not . What businesses did with those mortgage derivatives was a symptom of the cancer of government intervention in the economy. You argue for more morphine to address the symptom instead of cutting out the cancer.

Social Security and Medicare is just over half of the federal budget. There is absolutely, positively no way on earth one can reduce deficits and/or the debt without reforming how those programs are run. But as we have seen within even the last week, if a politician even dares to try to reform the programs, Dems start showing . Of course, the commercial conveniently ignores the fact of the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and SS to the tune of $107 TRILLION. Whether one agrees with him or not, at least Ryan has the guts to put forth something bold to address the situation. Obama reads his teleprompter and reads the world bold to us, but there's been nothing bold about any plan he's offered on the economy.

I've often stated my position in favor of tax reform, ending loopholes, deductions, etc. as a means of lowering the tax rates on everyone and broadening the tax base. I'd love to see old, outdated government programs ended, but they all have the constituency in Congress (or benefit from the economic idea of concentrated benefits-dispersed costs). Politicians and Presidents have talked for my adult lifetime about ending "fraud and abuse" in medicare/medicaid as a budget-savings item, but they're still talking about it today after some 30 years.

I doubt the American public has the moral fortitude at present to endure the pain that would ensue to legitimately trim the federal budget to reduce the deficit and the debt. We all love our social security, medicare, college loans, crop subsidies, electric car subsidies or whatever too much. It's easier to believe -- and contrary to any economic rationale -- that it's just a simple matter of taxing the rich more and raising taxes on employers. In other words, "ask not what you can do for your country. Make someone else pay for it."

[ET]

[Gene Scarborough]

ET---

Cut through the bull and see the real picture: Both times we had a Depression / Recession Republicans were at the helm!!!

FDR brought us out of the first one with the Soil Bank which helped the most numerous small businesses in America = the family farm.

The current Bush-Obama stuff has, so far, gone to those who drove their institutions into the dirt and they have rewarded themselves currently with big bonuses to the Executive who did it and NONE have gone to the Federal pen for their actions clearly in defiance of laws and regulations set in place since the Great Depression to avoid another one!

It was the George Bush Administration which set it all up and Obama is, sadly, not reversing it fast enough!!!

K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple, Stupid!!!!

[Gene Scarborough]

ET---

You live in a most limited world and I truely feel sorry for you is Limbaug is you mentor---that guy is full of wrath and has no concept of anything other than Rushland.

[ET]

Sandy:

1) Historically, recessions last on average about 8 months to a year, so people are justified in expecting recessions to be a matter of months.

2) What policies did Bush implement to "export American jobs"? What proof do you have that the jobs you mention were tied to Bush economic policies?

3) What Bush energy policy encouraged speculation in the oil market? Speculation in the oil market has been around ever since oil became a commodity, years before G.W. Bush became president. What policies has Obama implemented to do anything about it?

4) What policy did Clinton use to "push foreign automakers" to build plants in the U.S.? Honda and Toyota had plants in the U.S. before anybody knew who Bill Clinton was. What policy or policies unique to Bill Clinton led to these mythical "Clinton auto plant" jobs? In 2007, Toyota announced a plant in Blue Springs, MS. That would be during Bush's tenure. In July 2008, also during Bush's tenure, Volkswagen announced it would build a plant in Chattanooga. In March 2006, Kia announced a plant in West Point, GA. Again, Bush was in the White House. Are those three plants now cranking out hamburgers for McDonald's or is your rhetoric just devoid of facts?

5) Thinking about question 2, are Americans hypocrites for complaining about "shipping jobs overseas", but trying to lure foreign automakers to "ship jobs overseas" to the United States? Aren't you being hypocritical for criticizing Bush for supposedly "shipping jobs overseas" while touting Clinton for supposedly having other countries ship their citizens' jobs overseas to us? Volkswagen is building a plant in east Tennessee. Volkswagen is shipping "German" jobs overseas to the United States. Should this be allowed?

6) "Had it not been for the Democratically controlled Congress, the second bank bailout and the stimulus package, unemployment would have exceeded depression-era levels, and the financial system and stock market would have been in ruins." For the most part, largely speculation and fear-mongering. I'll concede there may have needed to be some government assistance, but not anywhere near the levels of money-printing that has taken place so far. I'd bet FDR and his cronies made the same argument after his money printing policies didn't work for 7 years and WWII saved his ...."America would have ceased to exist without government stepping in!!".....what a crock.

So many questions...so little time.

[ET]

[Gene Scarborough]

So---under which administration did this happen both times---Democratic or Republican????

Your contention that the Great Depression lasted as long as it did is historically TOTALLY INACCURATE!!!!

I'm Gene Scarborough and I aprove this message!

[ET]

[ET]

[Gene Scarborough]

A camel is a horse designed by a government committee---true when it was said and more true now!!!

If you want to take any course which is circular and convoluted, then involve so called "government experts" in the process.

We have on the Pamlico River an attempt to restore an artificial reef. The NC natural resourses department spent untold thousands calling in "experts" with sonar to determine where that hard bottom was. All they had to do was come down to the Bath Store and talk with several watermen who fish and crab this river. For free, they would gladly tell them where such exists because they fish / crab it every day = DUH---at taxpayer expense!!!!

[ET]

Is this horse dead yet?

[KeithE]