I love Ed Asner.

If you don't "get it" after watching this...you never will! Fantastic!

I think the
why Fox news is in such a uproar over this video, is that even the teabilly's would get this.

I can deal with that explanation.

Lorin, thank you.

This video points out the rich saying its the poors fault, & the point of the video is saying its the rich people's fault. The fact is if you take all of the rich people's money top 2%, forget taxes, take it all. It doesn't run the country for 2 months. We need tax reform yes, all people pay the same %, including the 48% of america who right now pay NOTHING. Entitlement reform as well we can not afford what we are spending. But two sides standing across from each other pointing fingers will solve nothing & breed hate. Quit blaming & start thinking, that is what we do best as Americans, is solve problems.

Quit blaming & start thinking, that is what we do best as Americans, is solve problems.

Me thinks thou need to stop blaming the 47% who don't pay taxes and think why they don't pay income tax.

including the 48% of america who right now pay NOTHING.

There is no such thing as 48% of Americans who pay NOTHING. Critical thinking should start at home.

It will never happen, but the best solution would be to have a flat rate tax, say 2 or 3%. Everyone pays the 2 or 3%, no deductions for anything, capital gains and dividends taxed as income.
This would lower the tax rate on everyone and simplify the tax code.
Probably would not need the thousands of employees at the IRS to ensure compliance with the tax code. If you do not pay the 2 or 3% into the IRS, then you are guilty of evading taxes.
Just my opinion.

Malcolm Forbes, when he was running for president in the 80s, proposed a flat 10% tax on 'earned income.' Aside from it not taking in enough money to run everything even back then, Malcolm Forbes, who was stinking rich, would pay nothing.

In other words, it only taxed people who earned their money. If they inherited it or got it from trusts or the like, they were free and clear.

In 1913, when the income tax was first introduced, one of the things backing it was the idea that the 'idle rich' should contribute as well as the working man.

It amazes me that 100 years later, we are still having the same argument. Just like the Tongue River Railroad.

The flat tax will only punish the middle class and poor not the rich...terrible idea..

I do not blame anyone for OUR, and it is our problem. If you want to be contentious I hope it makes you feel better. To me & it is just my opinion, it seems as though this video wants to point at anyone who is wealthy and scoff & say their the problem. Yes, we can do better in areas where some people take advantage of tax laws, just as well on the flip side where we know many very costly government run programs are taken advantage of & abused. It isn't one group that is the problem, there are many problems, & getting one group stirred up against another over & obviously biased video is not going to solve anything. Look at our congress, They solve nothing because they just argue, Guess what, their all rich and will have great pensions. Doesn't matter what party, They just point and say that guy is the problem, vote for me.. Just like this video, the concept will have the same conclusion.

Yes you are right income tax would have been a better choice. Fact is, everyone can contribute, no matter how little. thats where self esteem is born.

Per the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

The reality is that the income tax is one of a number of types of taxes that individuals pay, both over the course of their lifetimes and in a given year, and it makes little sense to treat it as though it were the only tax that matters. Some 82 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes. In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to 1.6 percent of income for those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution.

We could also take a HUGE chunk out of the military industrial complex. I guarantee more money is wasted there than anywhere else in the budget.

Steve Forbes.

Is a self-serving a-hole?

Right. Malcolm's son.

The hell with taxing the rich lets eat them and take all their stuff, that should run this hell bound train for a month or two.

I don't like the texture.

Really? I always thought rich people taste like chicken.

I like that idea, Chuck.
I love moronic Americans, who oppose making the upper 2% pay their fair share taxes, because they believe that with enough hard work or winning the lottery they will be in the 1% someday. Ain't ever gonna' happen.
I just watched "Capitalism-- A Love Story " by Michael Moore. Did you know that company like WalMart take out insurance on their younger, low risk employees, and keep the benefits? Their families get nothing except the medical and funeral costs. They call it the " dead peasant's" insurance. How's that for adding insult to injury.

I know most people don't like Michel Moore, because he's too "controversial". But you're missing alot. Behind his bizzarre humor there's a lot of facts, that the national media is afraid to expose.

Love Michael Moore and agree those that refuse to watch his movies are missing out on a lot...He is full of facts and figures that he presents in such a witty way...

Chuck loves Michael Moore, too. I got him a Michael Moore movies DVD box set for Christmas. Don't tell him.

Personally, I've always found them to taste a little too much like Fois Gras for my liking...

I think it's more like white bread with mayonnaise. Soft from their lack of hard work and exposure to sunlight.

Fox News' new theme song:

Dave,

My beloved brother, you always know just what to get me for Christmas, but in the excitement of having picked just the right gift you overlooked the possibility of me checking in on this fountain of wisdom on the rare occasion. Now I must think of just the right gift for you, oh lord the pressure.

By the way I thought this was the Fox news new theme song.



Which ever they are both excellent examples of music and once again we have shown the unwashed masses of MC.commie just how we role to use the vernacular of the youngsters now-a-days.

Love you Bro no poop! (just in case the Jakester is checking up on me)

Dave, that was an excellent choice gift for Chuck.

On the flip side, Tonie and Dixie gave me a Anne Coulter book for my 70th birthdasy present. I re-gifted it to my nephew who took it paddle fishesing. He reported the pages were soft and crumpled easily and didn't scratch when he wiped and burned easilyin the camp fire. I am going to check out the quality of paper, in the Glen Beck and Bill O' Reilly books for gift giving to campers.

Betty, I had my annual phone call with Chuck just last week and he told me how much he enjoyed Bill O'Reilly's latest book. If you're looking for a used copy you might want to check with him.

A-Hole........without question the second biggest one in the family. It was killing Kennedy and was a great read. 275 pages and I could not put it down, I will have you know I finished it in just under a week.

[This message has been edited by Chuck Schott (12/11/2012)]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Much Taxation Would Fund Current Spending?

By Justin Hohn

To best understand this spending aspect of the current budget negotiations in Washington, we must answer one crucial question: how much taxation on the top income-earners would be required to fully fund the present level of government spending?

To do so, we must first make the unreasonable assumption that the rich will not respond to confiscatory tax rates and hide money from being taxed. This is unreasonable because no scheme of taxation since WW2 has been able to capture more than 21% of GDP. With current spending levels around 23% of GDP, history suggests that no level of taxation we have yet tried would actually fully fund our current level of spending. But if we indulged some "static scoring" and assumed a static tax base, what would a zero-deficit, soak-the-rich taxation scheme look like at current spending levels?

For example, what would a 100% income tax on all those who earn over $10 million amount to? I'm not taking about a wimpy marginal rate, where one might tax only those dollars of income over $10 million (leaving the taxpayer $10 million). No, I'm saying you find all those who made more than $10 million and take every last penny -- an absolute tax of 100%.

Using 2009 data, the IRS says that 8,274 tax returns were filed with incomes over $10 million. The total amount of income on those returns was $240.1 billion.

Our federal government alone is spending more than $10 billion a day. Thus, a 100% confiscation of all income of those making more than $10 million would amount to less than 24 days of federal spending.

If we drop that "tax" point down to $1 million, the picture changes radically. The IRS says 236,883 Americans filed returns with more than $1 million in income. They reported a total income of $726.91B. While that is a lot of money, it's less than just Medicare and Medicaid, which cost $1 trillion together.

Confiscating 100% of all income from those who made over $1M funds the federal government for 72 days.

Therefore, we have to go farther down the income ladder. Merely taking 100% of what the "millionaires and billionaires" are reporting as income won't do it -- despite the campaign rhetoric from the president.

Let's move the bogey down to $200,000 in income. That's even lower than the $250,000-earners President Obama thinks should pay more. What happens if we confiscate 100% of all the income for people who make more than $200K?

The IRS received 3,924,490 tax returns showing an income over $200K. These returns represent a total income of $1.964 trillion! That's a huge amount of money.

But it's still not enough. The federal government is spending about double that this year.

Confiscating 100% of the income from those who made more than $200K funds the federal government for only about six months.

Even if you think that $200K per year is filthy rich, taking all of the income of such people for an entire year isn't even close to funding our federal government for a full year -- never mind state and local government.

The next step down in the 2009 IRS data is the $100K income point.

There are a lot more taxpayers reporting over $100K income then there are over $200K. The IRS says that only 2.8% of returns reported over $200K in income, but 12.4% of returns reported over $100K in income. So even though the cutoff is half as much income, it represents about five times as many taxpayers.

The data indicate that 17,446,537 tax returns showed an income over $100,000. These returns represented a total income of $3.765 trillion.

Estimated 2012 spending comes in at $3.796 trillion (refer to page 205 here). This is still $30 billion more than a 100% confiscation of the annual income of all Americans that reported more than $100K of income for 2009.

The bottom line is that we cannot fund our current levels of spending even if we make unrealistically charitable assumptions about taxpayer response to confiscatory tax rates and confiscate the entire annual income of every American who made more than $100K in 2009.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/how_much_taxation_would_fund_current_spending.html

__________________

Great article. Dumbass.

Anyone here not in favor of deep spending cuts to certain portions of the budget?

We need to raise revenue and cut spending. The question is, who should pay the revenues and who should lose the spending. I feel the wealthy can afford to give more while the poor need their benefits. I also feel the "defense" budget needs some serious slashing.

No one has ever suggested that JUST raising taxes on the stinking rich will solve everything but it has to be PART of the solution.

I quit reading at "confiscatory". Procreating rentier.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (12/12/2012)]

The bottom line is that we cannot fund our current levels of spending even if we make unrealistically charitable assumptions about taxpayer response to confiscatory tax rates and confiscate the entire annual income of every American who made more than $100K in 2009.

This article is a strawman from the perspective that the super-rich make most of their money from investment dividends, not from salary income. Raising capital gains tax rate should be a significant part of the equation. No mention of that fact in this article.

And yes, we do need to cut spending, particularly military spending. It is ironic that the people who write and reference articles like the one from American Thinker are typically those who scream the loudest about cutting military spending and continue to push their literalist religion perspective.