United for a Fair Economy!?

[Silcc69]

Was reading an article and I came up on this:

Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.

Schoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000.

"I simply point out to people, 'Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'" Schoenberg said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There's nothing stopping you.



Though that last comment tickled my funny bone. But rich people saying they should pay more taxes. But then again Bill Gates donated more to the democrats than republicans and Warren Buffet donated simply to the democrats. 2 very curious gestures to say the least.



http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/18/super-rich-see-federal-taxes-drop-dramatically/
United for a Fair Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:United_for_a_Fair_Economy_logo.jpg" class="image"><img alt="United for a Fair Economy logo.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/United_for_a_Fair_Economy_logo.jpg/150px-United_for_a_Fair_Economy_logo.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/3/33/United_for_a_Fair_Economy_logo.jpg/150px-United_for_a_Fair_Economy_logo.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_for_a_Fair_Economy)
http://www.faireconomy.org/

[Faldur]

You could confiscate 100% of the earnings of the top 10% wage earners and you would still have a deficit. Now do we have a spending problem or a tax problem?

[Silcc69]

you could confiscate 100% of the earnings of the top 10% wage earners and you would still have a deficit. Now do we have a spending problem or a tax problem?

both.

[trish]

We have a tax code problem and a tax problem. Due to loopholes in the tax code, incentive programs and the like, corporations pay zero to three percent tax on profits. GE paid zero taxes this year....ZERO. The wealthiest 1% of Americans possess nearly 40% of the total wealth. The "earnings" they make aren't wages...they're dividends and rise in owned stock and bond values. If you confiscate 100% of the wealth of the top 1% of the Americans you will therefore reap 40% of our collective wealth. Of course, no one's talking about confiscation and no one is talking about tax rates any where close to 100%. If we go back to the Clinton era or the Reagan era tax rates and remove the loopholes written since then into the law, we can start digging our way out the Bush-tax-cut-two-war-recession.

[Faldur]

Well you can't confiscate the property or financial assets of an individual or legal corporation, its unconstitutional. Would never happen.

My 100% comparison was wages, everyone says we should tax the rich more I was just taking it to a progressives wet dream level of 100%. You would still have HUGE deficits.

Our only problem, and this is opinion, is our spending. Our government operates like a 19 year old kid with a $40k line of credit. Pass a balanced budget amendment and end the necessity of even having this conversation.

[onmyknees]

We have a tax code problem and a tax problem. Due to loopholes in the tax code, incentive programs and the like, corporations pay zero to three percent tax on profits. GE paid zero taxes this year....ZERO. The wealthiest 1% of Americans possess nearly 40% of the total wealth. The "earnings" they make aren't wages...they're dividends and rise in owned stock and bond values. If you confiscate 100% of the wealth of the top 1% of the Americans you will therefore reap 40% of our collective wealth. Of course, no one's talking about confiscation and no one is talking about tax rates any where close to 100%. If we go back to the Clinton era or the Reagan era tax rates and remove the loopholes written since then into the law, we can start digging our way out the Bush-tax-cut-two-war-recession.

I've been waiting for this...your own take on "tax the Rich" Again your ideology and blind loyality to Obama's demagoguery about the rich and his own unwillingness to put his pants on and get to work on the deficit, leaves you short on the facts again. Obama's plan to tackle the deficit? BLAME BUSH !!! A 3rd year economic under grad has a better understanding on fiscal policy than this guy. You started out on somewhat solid ground with tax simplification, then revert right back into the old liberal ideology.

First off...stop blaming Bush...it's total nonsence and not based in fact. If we went back to 2008 deficits, we'd be dancing in the streets, and there would be no Tea Party !!!!!! You sound like a tired campaign slogan....albeit 3 years old ! LMAO

Now how about some facts to go along with all that pablum? ...Obama sold himself as something new, something differnet, but his act is old and already been seen. Now then onto the facts...

America's Debt Crisis (http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/fixing_crisis/)

Tax the rich! OK, but then what, Mr. President?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/04/12/news/economy/national_debt_taxes_obama/chart_uncle_sam_income_2.top.jpg By Jeanne Sahadi, senior writerApril 13, 2011: 7:15 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- For years, President Obama has been clear about his preferred tax policy: Tax the rich more and protect households that make less than $250,000 from higher taxes.

It's not clear what he'll say about taxes on Wednesday when he lays out his ideas for how to tackle the country's long-term debt. If history holds, he'll stick to his guns.

to promise low taxes for 98% of the country will help his newly launched 2012 re-election campaign. But it wouldn't be a great path to reining in debt. (Relying solely on tax increases for the rich to aid in deficit reduction -- even when paired with significant spending cuts -- doesn't cut itfor two reasons, said Tax Policy Center senior fellow Roberton Williams.

First, the income of the top 2% of taxpayers is typically more volatile than that of taxpayers lower down the income scale, so when the economy sours, so often do those high-end income streams. That means less revenue than expected will flow into federal coffers.
Second, even if that weren't true, there just aren't enough rich people to generate the kind of revenue needed to substantially reduce deficits.
To show the disparity, consider some recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office. Raising all six income tax rates by 1 percentage point would yield an additional $480 billion over 10 years. By contrast, raising the top two rates by 1 percentage point would yield just $115 billion.
What Obama has said: In his most recent budget request, the president proposed letting the top two income tax rates revert to 39.6% and 36%, up from 35% and 33% today. He also called for an increase in the capital gains and dividend rates to 20% that high-income households pay, up from 15% today. And he would reduce the value of their itemized deductions and personal exemptions.
All told, those proposals -- which would affect individuals making at least $200,000 and couples making $250,000 and up -- would reduce deficits by just under $1 trillion over 10 years.
That's only about a third of the deficit reduction that would occur if lawmakers just let all of the Bush-era tax cuts expire.
Think you're smart about deficits? Take the quiz (http://money.cnn.com/quizzes/2010/news/fiscal-debt/?iid=EL)
And it's just a tenth of the $1.1 trillion a year that could be saved if the tax code were stripped of the byzantine mess of tax breaks, many of which disproportionately benefit the rich but also benefit those lower down the income scale.
Of course, if one wants more revenue from the $250,000-plus set, why not just raise rates and constrain tax breaks even more than the president has proposed so far?
"You'd have to raise rates an awful lot on the wealthy," Williams said. And by that he meant to heights that would be neither politically nor possibly even economically feasible. The higher tax rates are, the more likely they are to affect economic behavior by increasing tax avoidance and discouraging otherwise growth-spurring investments. And that, in turn, can reduce the revenue raised.
Tax reform in order: That's why Williams and other tax experts hope that the president will take a cue from his own bipartisan debt commission (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/03/news/economy/fiscal_commission_plan_breakdown/index.htm?iid=EL), which recommended comprehensive tax reform.
The commission report laid a few paths to tax reform. One -- called the "Zero Plan" -- would eliminate all tax breaks. Doing so would raise more than $1 trillion a year, the bulk of which would be used to pay for a steep reduction (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/03/news/economy/fiscal_commission_plan_breakdown/index.htm?iid=EL) in individual and corporate rates.
Under that scenario, the commission would reduce the number of tax brackets for individuals from six to three and set income tax rates at 8%, 14% and at 23% -- a 12 percentage point drop from today's top rate.
The commission then offered two other, less extreme versions of the Zero Plan -- each of which adds back some tax breaks. In one case, they restore the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, both of which benefit lower income households. Under that scenario, income tax rates would be 9%, 15% and 24%.
When they add back still more -- this time including limited versions of popular tax breaks on mortgage interest, health insurance, retirement savings and charitable giving -- the rates would still be lower than they are today, but notably higher (12%, 22% and 28%) than under the most extreme Zero Plan.

[Faldur]

OnMyKnees.. :claps

[trish]

First, the income of the top 2% of taxpayers is typically more volatile than that of taxpayers lower down the income scale, so when the economy sours, so often do those high-end income streams. That means less revenue than expected will flow into federal coffers.The amplitude of the fluctuations in the income of the upper 2% swamps the average income of the lower 50%. All that we need to do is tax the upper 2% at a rate sufficiently high to cover the minimal possible expectation.


there just aren't enough rich people to generate the kind of revenue needed to substantially reduce deficits. Bill Gates is worth 42-56 billion dollars (depending on who you consult). He's 0.00000003% of the population. Just 23 Bill Gate's have a net worth equal to the total value of your pie chart. Nearly 40% of our collected wealth is possessed by the wealthiest 1% of the population. Are you sure Jeanne Sahadi meant the above quote to be a factual statement?

[Silcc69]

It amazes me that this has flown right over you conservatives head. This is a group of rich people that wanted to be taxed more. Yet ya'll are spewing the same conservative talking points.

[Stavros]

For the Americans here I wonder if I could present you with an issue I read about somewhere:

You are still using $1 bills, we in the Uk haven't had a £1 note since 1983. We do have small coins, 1p, 2p, 5p, 10p, 20p and 50p as well as £1 and £2 coins, but I would abolish all but the 20p and 50p coins as used in machines.

Apparently it costs the US $500m or more a year to maintain the supply of dollar bills -what for? What can you buy for a dollar? I think once the cost of the transition to coins has been made, the savings will go some way to help. Presumably you will need a quarter and then $1 $2 and $5 -but I dont know how Americans feel about this. I think I used a 'Silver dollar' when I was in Vegas a few years ago...

[Faldur]

It amazes me that this has flown right over you conservatives head. This is a group of rich people that wanted to be taxed more. Yet ya'll are spewing the same conservative talking points.

Silcc we see this same "group" or rich democrats come out every year at tax time. There is nothing stopping these people from contributing more to the US Treasury. If they want to pay more they can pay as much as they feel is fair for them, there are no laws stopping them.

This ploy is done solely to give a the appearance that raising taxes on the rich is a good idea. If you want to crush any hope of a recovering economy and continue to close small businesses go for it. But how our country can even think about raising taxes on anyone until we look at the 45% who are paying $0 in taxes.. seems where the tax raise should come from is obvious.

[hippifried]

If they want to pay more they can pay as much as they feel is fair for them, there are no laws stopping them.

Yes there are. Anybody with major bucks protects their personal assets by incorporating. Once you do that, the corporate money ceases to be your own personal fortune. It now belongs to the corporation, & there's laws governing its distribution. Microsoft isn't a sole proprietorship. Neither is Berkshire Hathaway. Even the Gates Foundation is an incorporated foundation. Paying more taxes than owed would be a breach of fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders, which are regulated, regardless of how many shareholders there are. You really should check your facts before parroting the spoonfed talking points.

[Faldur]

Well looking at the facts asshole, the first sentence in the article that the original poster pasted would give you a clue the the topic of this thread was not a corporation, but someone earning "north of $500k a year who wanted to contribute more. I was offering him an easy solution just as Orrin Hatch did.

But with your track record Hippi, I can't expect you to look 1 page back and view the facts that started the thread. No its far to easy to just shout "Rush Limbaugh", "Talking Points". And the stupidity of it is by crying "talking points!" your actually using talking points.

For the greater part the conservatives on this board post genuine thought and opinion. And most do a pretty dang good job of backing up there beliefs. The discussion on the left has become "Troll!", "Talking Points!", and "Glenn Beck smells farts in the bathroom!" If that is all the argument you have left there is no need to come here to discuss anything, you've brought a knife to a gun fight.

As far as where I go to get my news and information, I think you will agree with me thats my business. I don't come here and tell you how much I dislike your news sources. Who you watch and who you listen to is your own damn business and nobody can put you in a box because of it.

[Silcc69]

From here silly Faldur

http://www.heritage.org/

[onmyknees]

It amazes me that this has flown right over you conservatives head. This is a group of rich people that wanted to be taxed more. Yet ya'll are spewing the same conservative talking points.

Silcc....nothing flew over anyone's head. If this guy feels compelled to contribute more...there are thousands of very worthwhile charities out there geared to assist the underprivileged. He could give away his fortune, or start his own foundation. There something that's not adding up about his $2000 tax liability, but that's not the issue. What you liberal never ever answer is the majority of filers in the 250k-1m bracket are 501 sub chapter S small businesses. Your local Roto Router, the construction company down the street. The trash hauler...They are taxed as individuals on their gross income. If the IRS had a way to separate them from the plastic surgeon making 600K and filing as an individual maybe you'd get more traction on your shallow tax the rich proposal.

Further...Art Laffer came to the conclusion that there is a sweet spot in the scale. If you over tax the high end wage earners, they seek shelters and you'll get no revenue at all or they'll take their dollars offshore. It's a provable mathematical fact...notwithstanding your example of what sounds more like a publicity stunt by these folks . That's why you find the best tax attorneys in the most affluent suburbs. No...you all have a spending problem. Federal spending for many years was 20% of gross national product...under Obama it's 24 and raising steadily. ( Those are factual figures..) That my friend is the issue. Tell me how much we should tax "the rich" ? A 39% Federal tax rate?...but State Income Tax is 10% and if he lives or woks in NYC that's 7%...so do the math, then there's real estate taxes, gas taxes.... You're over 50% of income. Is that enough for you ? How much do you make? And how much should we tax you? If you're a proponent of taxing the other guy more...then you should answer that question.

And again....as has been proven to you libs over and over...you can't tax your way out of this. It's a vicious cycle for you all. You need more workers working and paying taxes, but when you tax small business...they tend not to hire additional employees. So what's your solution...not your political slogan...your solution ?

[onmyknees]

If you don't take this as an ominous warning....well I won't finish the sentence. And The Obama Administration's response?

Make a campaign appearance in front of a bunch of star struck college kids ( I think I saw Indeeda in the audience) and send out his political operatives to poo-poo the downgrade and call it political. Is Rome burning Nero?

This from the Washington Post...not Heritage.org !!!!!!!!!!


Standard & Poor’s financial storm warning



By Ruth Marcus (http://www.washingtonpost.com/linksets/2010/07/06/ABY6q7D_linkset.html), Tuesday, April 19, 7:15 PM


Thank you, Standard & Poor’s.
The rating agency’s warning (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-lowers-its-outlook-on-us-debt-stocks-decline/2011/04/18/AFRK601D_story.html) about the possibility it may downgrade the credit rating of the United States is a welcome wake-up call.





Another one. A few weeks back, Pimco, the world’s biggest bond fund, said it was eliminating its holdings (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-10/gross-dumping-treasuries-leads-managers-calling-rally-s-end.html) of U.S. government debt.
Then the International Monetary Fund lectured the United States in a tone that sounded more suited to a teetering Third-World country than the fund’s largest shareholder. A “credible strategy (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/pdf/c2.pdf)” to stabilize the U.S. national debt is “urgently needed,” the IMF warned.
Now comes Standard & Poor’s to lower its assessment (http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245302886884) of U.S. Treasury securities from “stable” to “negative” — meaning at least a one-in-three chance the U.S. debt rating could be lowered within two years.
It cited a “material risk” that there could be no agreement on how to deal with medium- and long-term budget issues by 2013. If nothing happens by then, “this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer ‘AAA’ sovereigns,” S&P said.


In other words, our greatest intangible asset — the fact that the United States is viewed as the world’s safest investment — could evaporate. Pffft. Interest rates would rise. The economy would tank. The higher cost of servicing the debt and the accompanying collapse of tax revenue would make it that much harder to escape this decidedly unvirtuous circle.
Truth is, you don’t have to be in the ratings business to see how difficult it will be for the United States to avoid this fate. The dysfunctionality of the political system is evident to any casual newspaper reader.
In fact, you might wonder why anyone ought to listen to one of the very culprits that helped produce the current economic mess — and whether S&P is engaged in a bit of corporate butt-covering. As it happens, the S&P assessment arrived on the heels of a congressional report finding (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110413/bs_nm/us_financial_regulation_report_ratingagencies) that inflated, and then suddenly downgraded, ratings of mortgage-backed securities by S&P and Moody’s triggered the financial crisis.
An S&P employee quoted by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations likened the deteriorating mortgage market to “watching a hurricane . . . moving up the coast slowly toward us.” That was in March 2007, even as the agency continued to issue AAA ratings for mortgage-backed securities, judging them as safe, ha ha, as government bonds.
The hurricane analogy applies equally well to the U.S. fiscal picture. The storm is gathering, although no one knows whether it will hit suddenly, with Category 5 force, or whether there will be time for an orderly evacuation once the first drops start to fall.
Which is why I’m thankful to S&P. The more shake-’em-up warnings that could prod the political system into action, the better. From the Obama administration’s point of view, you don’t want the financial markets overreacting to the news and therefore making economic matters worse — hence Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s round of interviews (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/04/geithner-deficit-credit-rating-standard-and-poors-report-debt-limit.html) saying that S&P was overly gloomy about the prospects for political agreement. At the same time, as long as the markets remain reasonably calm, as appears to be the case, the administration is happy to have the political classes riled up. Problem is, the administration has different messages for the two audiences but only a single microphone.
In fact, Geithner’s determined optimism notwithstanding, S&P’s assessment was not much different from what I hear in private from administration officials. As S&P noted, although the president and congressional Republicans agree on the need for debt reduction and are generally in the same numerical neighborhood, they are miles apart on how to achieve this.
Therefore, S&P said, “We believe there is a significant risk that congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 congressional and presidential elections.” In such a case, the first budget that could include serious fiscal measures would be for the 2014 fiscal year, the report concluded, “and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible.”
It tends to take a looming crisis for politicians to take unpleasant — and politically risky — steps. The challenge of dealing with the debt is that no one knows whether there will be enough time between the moment politicians are ready to act and the point at which the situation unravels.
The potential contribution of the Standard & Poor’s warning is that observing this phenomenon creates the potential to change it.

[hippifried]

Well looking at the facts asshole, the first sentence in the article that the original poster pasted would give you a clue the the topic of this thread was not a corporation, but someone earning "north of $500k a year who wanted to contribute more. I was offering him an easy solution just as Orrin Hatch did.

But with your track record Hippi, I can't expect you to look 1 page back and view the facts that started the thread. No its far to easy to just shout "Rush Limbaugh", "Talking Points". And the stupidity of it is by crying "talking points!" your actually using talking points.

For the greater part the conservatives on this board post genuine thought and opinion. And most do a pretty dang good job of backing up there beliefs. The discussion on the left has become "Troll!", "Talking Points!", and "Glenn Beck smells farts in the bathroom!" If that is all the argument you have left there is no need to come here to discuss anything, you've brought a knife to a gun fight.

As far as where I go to get my news and information, I think you will agree with me thats my business. I don't come here and tell you how much I dislike your news sources. Who you watch and who you listen to is your own damn business and nobody can put you in a box because of it.
Ya know spud... I don't give a shit who you parrot or why. I merely commented on the fact that you do it, like so many others, & you do it without looking. Just like a lemming. I also don't care about Orin Hatch, or opiion pieces from the internet, or fancy names on websites to make folks believe they're some sort of real organization.

The United States isn't a charity case. There's no possible way to cut enough spending to balance the budget. This nonsense that cutting revenue creates more revenue is a farce, & it's as bogus today as it was when Jack Kemp was spouting it in the '70s, or when George HW Bush called it "voodoo economics" during the debate with Ronald Reagan in 1980. In the last 3 decades, there's been 2 presidencies (2 terms each) who's whole focus has been on "supply side economics" ala Milton Friedman. The end of each of those 8 year periods gave us a bank panic, a market crash, recession, a spike in unemployment, a spike in inflation, an even bigger spike in the annual deficit & the overall national debt, & an endless list of excuses about how it was everybody elses fault. & who says you can't raise taxes in a recession? I keep hearing that tale over & over, but I can't find a reference to which old wife told it first.

Don't try to bullshit me that you came up with anything other than memes. I've heard all these arguments. Give me something original.

[robertlouis]

That will be the same Standard and Poor's which along with Moody's still had Bear Stearns and Lehman's at AAA rating till the shit hit the fan.

The circle of irony is duly complete.