This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

In Latest Bout Of Class Warfare, Multi-Millionaire Harry Reid Seeks To Replace Buffett Tax Proposal With 5% Millionaire Surtax

Tyler Durden's picture


Confirming that one has to be a billionaire or at least a multi-millionaire to be an applicant for the Tax Czar position under the Teleprompted Wealth Readjuster, is the latest sheer class warfare idiocy out of tax expert du jour Harry Reid, who has proposed an overhaul of the Obama tax bill with one in which millionaires end up paying a 5% surtax. National Journal reports: "Senate Democrats will replace tax increases proposed by President Obama to pay for his $445 billion jobs bill with a more politically popular tax increase on millionaires, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said on Wednesday. “When Democrats bring this common-sense jobs legislation to the floor, we’ll ask Americans who make more than a million dollars a year to contribute a little more,” Reid said in a morning floor speech. He said he hopes to set up a vote on the revamped jobs bill "within the next few days." That means he will seek action after the Senate passes a China currency bill and before Senate action on three free trade bills. Reid and Democratic aides have said they planned to alter the pay-fors proposed by Obama to win support of Democrats wary of the tax increases. Reid and other Democrats noted that raising taxes on millionaires polls well, even among GOP voters." Why yes, Harry, please go ahead and create some more class hatred. You should even bring your agenda down to Wall Street and threaten to occupy Wall Street if your demands are not met. But before you do, please make sure you create a poster which highlights not only how much money you have raised from corporate interests during your career, but specifically how much has come from the "Securities and Interest" industry. We are sure you will fit right in with your sincere populist demands.

Wait, class warfare? How dare we. Ok, we don't have a Ph.D., and don't want to come off as racist.... so we will just leave the allegations to these hard core Obama fans:

Robert Johnson (left), business magnate and founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET), has joined the mounting list of CEOs and business leaders who are questioning President Obama’s incessant demagoguing of America’s wealthy. On "Fox News Sunday," Johnson suggested that the President "recalibrate his message," so as not to "demean" or "attack" the achievements of so many hardworking Americans. "I’ve earned my right to fly private if I choose to do so," he declared, "and by attacking me, [Obama] is not going to convince me that I should take a bigger hit because I happen to be wealthy."


Although Johnson did not directly address President Obama’s "Buffett Rule" (a proposal that would allow millionaires to pay a lesser share of their income in taxes than middle-income earners pay, such as Warren Buffett's secretary), he grimaced at the notion of raising taxes on the wealthy, as he described how he joined the business world to "create jobs and opportunity [and] create value for myself and my investors." Raising taxes and alienating America’s job producers would only suppress such ambition, he implied.


Another wealthy businessman and previous Obama supporter, former AOL executive Ted Leonsis, attacked the President’s new tax proposal in a Sept. 25 blog, titled, "Class Warfare — Yuck!" "Economic success has somehow become the new boogie man," Leonsis writes, adding that "some in the Democratic Party are now casting about for enemies, and business leaders and anyone who has achieved success in terms of rank or fiscal success are being cast as a bad guy in a black hat."


During an interview last week with CBS News, the BET founder took a broader tone with the federal government, arguing that the political process is too polarized, and thus has taken a toll on the economy. "I’ve been in business for over 30 years [and] I’ve never seen a time when there’s been more zero-sum game mentality in the United States among political parties," he told CBS’s Scott Pelley during the interview.


Johnson expounded the idea that from a business standpoint, if one saw two parties arguing so relentlessly, one would not want to conduct business with either of them, but would find other parties with which to work. "And you know what you find, the Chinese who want to do business. You find the Vietnamese who want to do business. You find the Brazilians. You find the Indians want to do business with you."


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:08 | 1741631 ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

Sounds OK to me.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:18 | 1741683 Nascent_Variable
Nascent_Variable's picture

Real, effective tax reform would not paint in such broad strokes.  The way to generate revenue, level the playing field, and stimulate the economy at the same time is to punish the cheaters, while encouraging investment.  Cut top rates and reduce or eliminate most, if not all, deductions and credits at the same time.  Make a move toward a progressive flat tax.

The lower rates decrease capital flight, while the closed loopholes keep companies like GE from paying an effective rate of <10% with billions in revenue.  As an added bonus, the government's ability to conduct social engineering through the tax code is greatly reduced.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:54 | 1741896 Gold Man-Sacks
Gold Man-Sacks's picture

"Make a move toward a progressive flat tax... ?"  Do you realize the absurdity in what you just said?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:01 | 1741923 Nascent_Variable
Nascent_Variable's picture

Flat in the sense of unmoving, i.e. top rate and effective rate are virtually the same.  Progressive in the sense that the tax rates adjust up with income.  I have a hard time getting on board with a tax that isn't progressive.

The key to a plan like that is that you can greatly reduce the tax burden of everyone by eliminating the system that punishes those who cheat the best.  People who work for a living aren't the ones who pay a small fraction of their top rates.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:24 | 1741987 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

If tinkering with the tax code is about feeding Leviathin or social engineering, forget about it.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:46 | 1742261 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

Forget about it, If tinkering with the tax code is about "feeding the Leviathin." Especially at Maison Blanche, Tour d'Argent and the other tony restaurants.

I accidentally junked you. You'll get make-goods.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:01 | 1742576 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

Why tax at all? Bring back the United States Note and eliminate all national debt. Then you have no need to tax...

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 17:01 | 1742884 eureka
eureka's picture

Why bother at all?  Let the unholy US Federation & Empire disintegrate.

Let each state and or region form its own little country.

US'ians hate each other. 


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:18 | 1742147 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 I have a hard time getting on board with a tax that isn't progressive.

Are you advocating getting rid of lotteries, toll booths, sales taxes, and FICA?  Curious minds want to know...

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:40 | 1742244 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

15% of $50,000 income = 7,500 in taxes

15% of $1,000,000 income = 150,000 in taxes

150,000 is greater than 7,500 (2000% greater in fact)

How is that not already paying their "fair share"?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:56 | 1742284 Nascent_Variable
Nascent_Variable's picture

I'll admit you make a good point, but the problem is less on the 50K - 1,000K spectrum than it is on the 10-15K.  If somebody is not making enough to cover basic expenses even after slashing them to the minimum, imposing a flat tax on them creates an incredible hardship, more so than anyone in the higher income ranges.

People making that little (assuming no government entitlements) aren't the ones reaping the rewards of the system.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 18:58 | 1743267 Old Poor Richard
Old Poor Richard's picture

15% of $50,000 income = 7,500 in taxes

15% of $1,000,000 income = 150,000 in taxes

150,000 is greater than 7,500 (2000% greater in fact)

How is that not already paying their "fair share"?


Almost there.  Create modest personal exemptions for earners and non-working dependents to cover basic living expenses, and it's a fair and progressive flat tax.

( $50,000 - $8,500 - 4 * $3,700 ) = $26,700 * 15% = $4,005 in taxes

( $1,000,000 - $8,500 - 4 * $3,700 ) = $976,700 * 15% = $146,505 in taxes

Now fair.


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 15:16 | 1742346 Banjo
Banjo's picture

The richest people earning 1million pa use many schemes, trusts, investment loans etc... to ensure they earn whaterver income they want to declare. I have generally found rich people to be pretty intelligent people and if they don't know how to work the books themselves they hire someone who can make it happen.


I read recently the big corporations want a tax holiday on overseas profits. All for the good of the average person of course just like the bailouts :)


I would like to see someone model an economy that uses the flat tax you describe and a capital tax with corresonding national dividend. These rates should flucutuate depending on the level of participation less participation lower taxes and therefore lower national dividend.


Irving Fischer also proposed abolishing fractional reserve banking after the great depression, I also think this would be an idea worthy of developing.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 15:58 | 1742551 tmosley
tmosley's picture

What happens when you through slow but persistant inflation into the mix, pushing ever more people into those higher percentage tax brackets?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:30 | 1742747 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

How about we worry about that if wages ever start to increase again, eh? 

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:08 | 1746053 Gold Man-Sacks
Gold Man-Sacks's picture

Why stop with progressive income taxes, then?  I mean, how about progressive prices at Pizza Hut?  The more money you make, the more you pay for that medium pizza.  The unemployed guy with five kids not only pays nothing, but actually gets a credit when he gets the extra-large. 

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:25 | 1741990 macholatte
macholatte's picture


There has been little the Progressives have done that I have seen as good for America. However, I support a tax  surcharge and would scold the wealthy whinners who are indignant because Barry didn't say "Please".  Fuck 'em! 

Also, I propose a new Minimum Tax of $1,000 ($1,500 for married couples filing jointly) on EVERYONE. Including the parasites. That would raise another $50B-$70B per year.


A corporation's primary goal is to make money. Government's primary role is to take a big chunk of that money and give it to others.
Larry Ellison

The politicians say "we" can't afford a tax cut. Maybe we can't afford the politicians.
Steve Forbes

When you consider that a steelworker who’s making $40,000 a year has virtually the same tax burden as someone who’s making $400,000 a year, you see that there are inequities. This administration has used the tax code to accelerate wealth to the top. Most of the tax breaks have gone to people in the top bracket.
Dennis Kucinich

 Everyone wants a more simple tax system. But if this means that certain tax breaks have to be cut, people are no longer so enthusiastic.
Angela Merkel

The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person...

The Wealth Of Nations, Book V Chapter II Pt II, p. 825, para. 4.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:10 | 1742111 Rick64
Rick64's picture

I have a another suggestion. We get rid of all the rich politicians who are colluding with their paymasters (corporations and banks) while the taxpayers pay their salaries, expenditures, pensions, and health insurance. Are these rich politicians are more in touch with big business or the common citizen?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:42 | 1742249 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

Let's start with a surcharge on Unions who receive hundreds of millions every year tax-free.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 15:21 | 1742370 Banjo
Banjo's picture

One thing Adam Smith failed to see back in the days of gold and silver being base money. Is the distortion available to a government when they can print unlimited amounts of reserve currency.

This means that difficult decisions do not have to be taken with regards how to pay for current spending as you can create as much money as you like. How this gets paid back in the future well no one is really sure except for the idea of default (deflation) default (inflation)

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 17:37 | 1742998 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

"I propose a new Minimum Tax of $1,000 ($1,500 for married couples filing jointly) on EVERYONE."

Why in the hell would you want government subsidizing MARRIAGE, for fuck's sake?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 18:45 | 1743224 Old Poor Richard
Old Poor Richard's picture

Not absurd at all.

The fix for that is a flat tax with exemptions for the earner and for non-working dependents, and no others.  It is a flat tax with one rate, but that personal exemption is fixed and so provides less proportional relief for higher incomes.  

Progressive flat tax.  File on a post card.  No shelters.  All income treated equally whether interest, dividends, wages, capital gains, gambling winnings, inheritances, life insurnace payouts--if it's NEW TO YOU, it's INCOME, and thus it's taxed at the same flat rate. 


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:27 | 1741752 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

These disputes could all be solved by doing away with free market wages, and introducing a minimum wage that provides Americans with a luxurious standard of living comparable to the highest members of society. For example, if we set the minimum wage at 1,000,000 dollars per year, we would have far better income equality and upward mobility. I suggest people refer to Alan Krueger's paper which PROVES the benefits of wage-controls beyond any reasonable doubt ( Alan Krueger is rated as one of the 50 BEST ECONOMISTS in the world by REPEC (, and will go down in history as one of the great pioneers of centralised price controls.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:36 | 1741802 Rothbardian in ...
Rothbardian in Cleveland's picture

Why 1,000,000?  I mean, a house and a Bently and what not, takes a bit out of that right quick.  Why not 5,000,000 or 10,000,000.  That would be so kick ass!!!



Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:49 | 1742055 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

I appreciate the suggestion but 10000000 dollars a year is slightly too high and could discourage or prevent employers from hiring more workers. I hate to say it but this kind of comment demonstrates a serious lack of economic education, which is one of the reasons we are in this predicament in the first place.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:12 | 1742116 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

As a famous cartoon wabbit was fond of saying:

What a maroon!   ~Bugs Bunny

I think it's your's and Washington's lack of serious economic common sense that is the reason we are in this predicament.

Exactly how are small buisnesses that don't even generate income in the millions but might have one or two employees supposed to come up with the money to pay each employee one million a year. Are they supposed to go out and borrow the money. What happens if  after everyone at the small company gets there million dollar salaries and the company still generates income that is less than a million a year?

Is the government going to give everyone one million a year, if so then what is the incentive to work?

Your new idea is stupider than your last one. Doesn't the AolHuffPost have a section you can spread this illiterate tripe on.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:36 | 1741803 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I think you need to present this proposal to the president.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:58 | 1741911 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

I must admit I do enjoy the absurdity of MDB's posts.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:03 | 1741920 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

Wow, pure genius.

I fail to comprehend why ZH has yet to offer this illuminute his own space to post his brilliant thoughts.

Let's see, exactly where have wage and price controls been applied in the past?

Hmmm, Cuba maybe?, the Soviet Union?, how's North Korea lookin'?, can anyone remember Communist China?, Communist Vietnam? Care to look south of the border into central and south America?

Ah yes, didn't we dally with price and wage controls during the Nixon/Ford/Carter administrations?

I'm all for everyone making one million a year, just see if you can maintain supply while keeping prices down, or is that working for Chavez in Venezuela.

One suggestion, don't quit your day job.

But with your line of reasoning I'm sure you'll be quite the attraction on Worlds Dumbest Economists, they'll devote a whole hour long show just to you.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 15:53 | 1742456 Banjo
Banjo's picture

The reason I like your post so much it clearly demonstrates a fundamental issue is how do we equitably distribute a portion of wealth, that is then able to re-circulate within the economy, to form a robust middle class with adequate incentive to produce.

One suggestion is we do it as a percentage of turnover, higher turnover and or productivity = higher wages. This means in a bubble inflation or growing economy wages are rising in a deflation or contractionary economy wages are falling AND criticaly related to the turnover of the business you are associated with. (I know this is a dream because accountants would hired to show no turnover or significantly reduced turnover in the business)

This almost shares the Marxist concept of "who owns the means of production" you see someone who actually owns productive plant and property unencumbered and not intermediatd by tranches of claims on said real productive capacity (as in common stock where there are numerous other creditors that have claim to company assets ahead of stock holders) is not worried about deflation or inflation because if you need to buy cars, airfares, energy, toothpaste, bread and other items, the owner of productive capital will always be able to make money at a price point that makes relative sense.

What we have now is something that has individuals contribute their labour and depending on what role you land in the economy you may not obtaine a fair share (however we define it) based on your input. We only need to look at someone who say cleans your hotel room or picks up your trash and juxtapose this against a banker selling loans.

I am not arguing that a banker should earn less money I am suggesting that perhaps under our current system structurally that the cleaner for example is possibly not receiving an equitable distribution of wealth compared to our banker who I suggest may be earning excess compared to their input.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:57 | 1742843 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

This is ignorance at its best.

If a janitor is unhappy with his annual income, and envious of a bankers annual income, then he should stop being a janitor and become a banker, or an athlete, or a hollywood movie star, or whatever it takes to make the amount of money he feels he is entitled to earn.

At least the mob doesn't sit around griping about how so and so makes this much while so and so makes that much per year, they go out and steal as much as possible instead of sitting around pontificating about how everyone is entitled to one million a year in annual income.

So, stop whining about how much someone else makes and go out and start making your own millions or billions.

Ahh, you don't know how to go about making a million or a billion dollars in annual income a year? Too bad, I guess that's why you sit around expecting someone else to give it to you for nothing.

It seems we have a lot of envious monetary warfare turds patrolling the webpages of ZH.

Either that or Obama has created a butload of webots designed to go out and extol the virtues of government mandated wage levels.

I guess the trolls are supposed to think that if everyone makes a million a year that a measly 5% tax would be insignificant.

It just don't work that way. They may give you a million a year annual income but they'll turn around and tax you at 90% of that income.

Then you'll be bitchin' that you don't make enough money and you need two million a year, then 5 million a year, or ten million year.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:40 | 1741825 nedwardkelly
nedwardkelly's picture

Sounds OK to me.

My guess is you don't earn that much. What about when they tweak the law, lower this 'surtax' down to a level that does affect you, THEN will it still sound OK to you? What about when inflation takes you up to the level that it affects you... THEN will it still sound OK?

I dont care who they propose it on, any new income based tax is dead in the water for me. Consumption based tax I can live with.

Even then, unless they start talking about reducing spending, it's all just a discussion on how fast the titanic is taking on water.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:46 | 1742050 kubrick007
kubrick007's picture

how about a 90% tax above $1 million on all income derived by working at a bank, equity firm, hedge fund, FIRE sector, trading, etc...that way if u r an entrepreneur that actually adds something to the economy u can still make $10 billion and pay only 20% or so.


that would be fair as it would target those individuals who screwed the system over. i would like to add that tax to anyone who stupidly bought a home that was 5 or more times their avg annual income but those people generally have no $ to give back.


i am fedup with the b.s. out there about the tax arguments. the middle class is not rallying against steve jobs or the restaurant franchise owners. no one has a problem with that (or at least very few do). i would venture that over 90% of the population is extremely pissed & rightly so, though, at those who make $1 million to $4 billion a year, simply stealing money from the govt via $2 trillion+ kickbacks so that they can buy 8 balls of cocaine, hang out drinking bottles at 1 oak (ok i don't go out any more so not sure what the spot is now), and paying for hookers....(perhaps also a tax on cocaine & hookers as that would also help recoup much of the kickbacks to the banks). 

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:45 | 1742258 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

Don't forget to include all the idiot pension funds that gave billions to your list of culprits so the culprits could "[screw] the system over".

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:08 | 1741633 prophet
prophet's picture

Picking up on BAC idea of $5/month.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:15 | 1741635 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Moonbats Gone Wild!

I saw Johnson on CNBC yesterday, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me and it should be clear to everyone that the "race" issue in America is going to be exploited ad infinitum.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:10 | 1741641 Corn1945
Corn1945's picture

I'm convinced that our elected officials serve only to waste our time.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:16 | 1741670 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Our govt is now nothing but professional cornholers.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:17 | 1741680 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

That's nonsense, they're not professional.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:45 | 1742259 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

I am Cornholio!  I need TP for my bung-hole!!   Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:16 | 1741674 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

If you get junked I'll be... surprised.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:45 | 1741843 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture


The idea that Corn owns any politicians is sheer lunacy.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:40 | 1742036 AmericanFUPAcabra
AmericanFUPAcabra's picture

Douglas Adams - 
- One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them: It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job. Another problem with governing people is people.


Douglas Adams - 
- Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.


theres more, but eh

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:12 | 1741649 economessed
economessed's picture

If the Federal government needs money, have the Bernank print-up whatever they need.


"They pretend to lead the country, and we pretend to pay taxes."

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:29 | 1741768 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

How about an unearned income tax on all of the government desk jockeys, and an end to free housing for the permanent parasite class?  We could balance the budget in 15 minutes.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:51 | 1741870 i-dog
i-dog's picture

How about we just get rid of the Federal Government? They are the enemy of the sovereign states of the Union ... and therefore the enemy of every sovereign American citizen.

It's not like there aren't already enough politicians and bureaucrats in each state to sort out the roads and water supplies, FFS!!

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:12 | 1741650 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

Wonder if Warren B supports a tax upon wealth rather than income.  Big talk from guys who've already made their money.  That's the question that needs to be put to him.

As for Harry Reid, creepy dude.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:19 | 1741690 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

You see that a lot (I do) from Old Money.  They LIKE the Income Tax, it help keep the Rich Man's Club nice and small.  Better seating at the nice restaurants in town and all.  I have not heard any Buffetts or Gates talking about a Wealth Tax...

Besides, they all have it in trusts or other wise protected from their self-serving tax proposals.


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:33 | 1741791 ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

Agreed, a wealth tax would be better, it is too easy to hide passive income.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:12 | 1741651 johnnymustardseed
johnnymustardseed's picture

About time... if he is so rich then he is taxing himself. I am cool with that

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:13 | 1741656 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

Earnings vs wealth.  He is proposing taxing earnings, not wealth.  He gets to keep what he has.  Sorry.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:18 | 1741686 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Notice how rich people want to tax earnings after said rich people already made their wealth?

Fucking hipocrites. Fucking statists of conveniece.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:22 | 1741720 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Yep.  They keep what they have made and make it harder for others to take the best seats at Maison Blanche, Tour d'Argent and the other tony restaurants.

It's a nice trick, but you have that right: hypocrites.  Lying and stinking.

GREEN to our top troll!

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:42 | 1741794 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Would you like to have to pay a federal maintainance fee every year on assets you've already paid taxes on?...or is it that you think they just won't ever come after you?

Follow-up question: Which type off assets are a good, long-term store of value and also relatively easy to hide and transport?...

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:57 | 1741908 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

I think we are all just pointing out the hypocrisy of guys like Warren B.  Most here, like myself, are for no or low taxes on everyone while cutting the shit out of government.

As for good long term stores of value, is that a trick question?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:22 | 1741965 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Not at all.

I'm just trying to underscore that a federal wealth tax would drive more wealth into whatever legal shelters remain available....but also "underground" into precious metals, out of the country etc.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:29 | 1741998 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

I doubt any of us here favor a wealth tax.  I certainly do not.  I believe in keeping what you earn.  Precious metals seem to be the best store of wealth and are the most easily transportable.

As for out of the country, Bullion Vault or Gold Money seem to be the most popular.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:16 | 1742644 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Nor does even nimrod bearing with less than two and a half remaining neurons favor a Wealth Tax

I like the idea of a National Sales Tax (only, no Income Tax or Wealth Tax).  Net-net, that would work similar to an Energy Tax (in that you buy it, or use it), you pay.  A voluntary tax to boot.  No intrusive IRS, another bonus.

But, it is regressive, so THAT would never happen.

YES re PMs, everyone here has seen my umpteen comments on gold...

Buying bearings from Asia works for me too...


Green to Mercury and Silver for good dialogue.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:22 | 1741984 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"They keep what they have made and make it harder for others to take the best seats at Maison Blanche, Tour d'Argent and the other tony restaurants."

So then you'd prefer to tax estates?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:18 | 1742659 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

No, I would rather pay a National Sales Tax, see my comment just upthread ("NE" of right here).

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:41 | 1742239 mophead
mophead's picture

"Notice how rich people want to tax earnings after said rich people already made their wealth?"

They want to build a moat around their empire.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:50 | 1741874 nedwardkelly
nedwardkelly's picture

Wealth is already partially taxed via property taxes. I've thought more than once about buying a much nicer home, then I looked at the associated property tax bill.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:36 | 1742022 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

I wonder what other obvious taxes and some not so obvious hidden taxes are out there hitting wealth instead of income? 

Ned, you're on to something.  Are consumption taxes hidden wealth taxes if the basis related to maintaining property?  Sales tax on cable and cellphone use?  You're locked into a contract there.  Taxes on your utilities?  Check you electricity bill and see all those taxes in there.

Holy crap!

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:13 | 1741653 Sambo
Sambo's picture

Bomb threat at Frankfurt stock exchange....:(

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:20 | 1741707 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Wait... are you requesting this or...?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:20 | 1741980 LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

LOL, now that IS funny man.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:14 | 1741655 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Harry Reid has more in common with the former revolutionaries in the Soviet Union than he does with ordinary Americans. Man are we off course in this country.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:14 | 1741659 pods
pods's picture

First they came for...............


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:23 | 1741728 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Yes, and then they come for us.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:14 | 1741661 imaginalis
imaginalis's picture

Alternative Minimum Tax all over again. A carpenter will be a millionaire in not too many years ahead and paying another 5%. 

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:15 | 1741664 Comay Mierda
Comay Mierda's picture

the communists who have hijacked the occupy wall street movement will be calling for a lot more rediculous taxes like this. pretty soon you'll be paying a not in poverty surtax.

back in the day the serfs only had to pay 25 percent to their masters. It's my goal in life to become elevated to the status of a serf

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:15 | 1741665 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Republicans should accept this and wrap it into a bill establishing a constitutional amendment with a hard cap on federal spending.

Dont block this democrat proposal. Use it against them.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:15 | 1741667 jjsilver
jjsilver's picture

He should be brought up on charges for perjure of his oath of office.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:16 | 1741668 bankruptcylawyer
bankruptcylawyer's picture

finally the ultra rich are going to start realizing that all these years the bankers were helping them out are balogna and that now the bankers are trying to destroy them.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:16 | 1741671 jayman21
jayman21's picture

I was laughing at the thought of Harry Reid walking with the 99%.  The sign idea is priceless.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:16 | 1741676 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Why is it called class warfare when people ask the mega-wealthy to pay their fair share of the taxes?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:30 | 1741716 jjsilver
jjsilver's picture

Please show me the law that says one man can take property from another man to give to another. There is none. Only statutes that apply to UNITED STATES citizens, and you have a choice not to be one and live in the United States of America!Why would anybody want to be a slave to a corporation when they have a choice not to!

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:37 | 1741801 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:41 | 1741832 Rothbardian in ...
Rothbardian in Cleveland's picture

The 5th amendment says they CAN'T take it...not that they can.  Of course my Constitution copy is an older one, perhaps the ministry of truth has changed that in your version.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:09 | 1741877 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I mis read his post that's why I deleted my comment. I thought he was suggesting that a person had the right to take property from another person. I posted in haste and anger. Sorry.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:54 | 1741894 pods
pods's picture

If you are a citizen you have given up your rights as one of "We the People" in favor of the priveledges affored to citizens.  This also subjects you to all the rules the make.


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:38 | 1741811 Libertarians fo...
Libertarians for Prosperity's picture



If I'm reading your comment correctly, you're against all taxes, right? 

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:46 | 1741852 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Taxation is theft. The "ends" never justify the "means."

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:11 | 1741952 Libertarians fo...
Libertarians for Prosperity's picture



Another libertardian wing nut.


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:23 | 1741985 Chump
Chump's picture

Another compelling and well-reasoned argument from the peanut gallery.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:38 | 1742028 Libertarians fo...
Libertarians for Prosperity's picture



I wish our government would give up just one state of the 50 (maybe Kentucky?), and let all the goofy libertardian goons live in perfect utopia by themselves. 

They would be 100% tax exempt, but could not benefit from anything that has government involvement - not a single thing. Nothing. Can't even use images from NASA when teaching their children about stars and planets. Everyone would travel by horse and buggy, farm their own meals, barter amongst themselves, home school their own children, fight their own battles, and turn back the commerce clock by 200 years. It would be a much needed dumping ground for all the extreme libertardian wing nuts who just can't assimilate themselves to the modern world.


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:48 | 1742052 Chump
Chump's picture

I see more talkey but still no thinkey.  Keep plugging away!

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 15:02 | 1742302 Libertarians fo...
Libertarians for Prosperity's picture



You shouldn't sneak up on your wife with the camera.  Makes her look "weird"

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 15:31 | 1742409 fuu
fuu's picture

Looks like liar boy had to resort to wife insults again.

Here I was expecting something better from a man of your education.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:21 | 1742680 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Agree 100% about nasty post by Faux Libertarian.  I'll go junk him, after greening you.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:24 | 1742705 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Why so mean?  One of things I never have understood, why all the cheap shots?  Even in Fight Club.  Like I said to the primate-with-gun, RED for you.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 15:05 | 1742316 saiybat
saiybat's picture

You realize those libertarians could form their own collectives? Of course with the ability to opt in or out of the collective. It'd be the Luxembourg of the U.S. within ten years; wealth would be stored there, business would pour in to trade tax free goods. Within 20 years it'd be the financial and manufacture center of the country. That sort of prosperity, however, would never be allowed.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:02 | 1742578 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I wish that as well.  Never mind saying what they can or can't do, just build a wall around it.  They can trade across the wall, trading thier superior manufactured goods for the raw materials that don't exist within their own borders.

I think you should take this idea to Obama right away.


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:25 | 1742713 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

GREAT response to the Hitler lover!

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:27 | 1742722 Libertarians fo...
Libertarians for Prosperity's picture



What?  You'd be unemployeed, Cliff! 

You wouldn't get all those government grants you were bragging about last winter. Take away those grants, and watch the private capital flee. That's how it always works....  private capital rides on the coattails of government money.  Take away the grants and....shazaaam!... the private money that funds your athlete's foot research goes away. 

Do you realize that you're probably the only hard-core, anti-government, Xeer-dreaming anarchist in this country who, hypocritically, is TOTALLY DEPENDENT on the government for your income?  I can't even fathom your level of cognitive dissonance! 

A Xeer-dreaming anarchist, living off the government tit.       





Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:50 | 1741876 pods
pods's picture

Ahhhh, you have been researching the real meaning of the 14th have you?

Kudos.  If enough drop the chains of a citizen and regain their cast aside sovereignty then all this is a moot point.


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:22 | 1741719 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Because that is not the true agenda of statists, to tax the megawealthy, but merely a rallying point to deceive and rally the useful idiots.....

like you.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:24 | 1741738 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

True dat.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:23 | 1741726 Spaceman Spiff
Spaceman Spiff's picture

Do we not already have a progessive tax sysem?    

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:48 | 1741862 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

It's progressed about as far as it can get without killing the host (The American Entrepreneur).

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:26 | 1741748 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Why is it class warfare when the poor are asked to pay their fair share? You can confiscate all the mega wealthy's money/assets that they have and you could fund the government for a month. Then what do you do? You've already taken everything?  The only way to solve this is with a consumption tax and no tax breaks or loop holes. Everybody should pay the same level of taxes and make their contribution to society.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:48 | 1741864 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

No. The only solution involves abolishing the income tax. No income tax, no domestic support for the FRN, no power to the Fed, no funding for the government, no more monetary tyranny!

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:54 | 1741897 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

With a consumption tax there are no other taxes.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:50 | 1741871 Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

Why is it called "Fair Share" when 48% of the Nation are paying no taxes at all?

If we are talking about fair, where is the bill that requires them to start contributing?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:56 | 1741904 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I think no taxes at all is fair, and the poor should be lauded for paying the appropriate amount of income taxes.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:34 | 1742011 Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

Ha, I could agree if only we weren't pointing the finger at the "rich" to say they need to pay up.

What's even worse is that marxists like Obama then have the audacity to say they aren't paying their fair share.


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 15:29 | 1742404 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

That "48% do not pay taxes" is a big lie the billionaires made up to fool little minds.  The poor pay a large percentage of their incomes in the form of sales tax, payroll tax, utilities taxes, etc. etc. etc.  And don't forget, everything they purchase already has the income taxes, excise taxes, tarrifs, and all other manner of taxes added in.  A good example would be a simple bottle of Tylenol.  The poor guy making $1100/mo. as a part-time night watchman is paying 70% tax.  In what form you might ask.  Legal, fees and insurance.  Both generated by government intervention in free markets.  And who earns those legal fees and collects the insurance.  The wealthy, of course. 


Just remember this, if the wealthy are unhappy paying higher taxes they can leave.  Put all the wealthy on an island and let them see where wealth is generated.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 15:31 | 1742407 mephisto808
mephisto808's picture

48% pay no FEDERAL TAXES.
You ever heard of payroll tax? Sales tax? State, local, excise, property taxes? Don't be fooled, the 48% are still paying taxes.
Here's the dirty secret: Taxes are more of a burden on the middle and lower classes than it will ever be on the ultra wealthy. Moron. 

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:17 | 1741677 RobD
RobD's picture

Harry should retire and go back to Searchlight.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:17 | 1741679 nyse
nyse's picture

Robert Johnson is clearly an Uncle Tom, so fuck 'im.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:17 | 1741681 Bob
Bob's picture

Funny, that old reliable "class warfare" bugaboo that has played so well against the legitimacy of the vast majority in this corporatist dystopia that crony capitalism built is just not shutting people up anymore. 

It's more of the plutocracy and their useful idiots having so insanely overplayed their hand.  This time, you're gonna see the vast majority respond to these ignorant rebuttals of "class warfare" with "Hell, yeah, mother fuckers--Surprise!" 

There's no point in making the argument that class warfare has prevailed over at least the last 30 years.  Either you get it or you simply don't want to. 

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:19 | 1741693 Gordon Freeman
Gordon Freeman's picture

By the time the ink is dry, the "millionaire" will be defined as anyone making over $200K/yr.  Just watch...

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:32 | 1741784 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture


With no inflation adjustment

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:20 | 1741700 Spaceman Spiff
Spaceman Spiff's picture

Who needs equal treatment under the law anyhow?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:32 | 1741785 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

And hey, what is the law but the decreed opinion of a tiny minority?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:02 | 1741925 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture

NEVER in the history has been equal can't be.


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:20 | 1741706 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



Here's the deal.

If I could pay a 30% Tax..

to realize a 60% gain in my revenues!

sure, sign me up!

the arguement of not paying Taxes comes from people who do not produce, those that are living off someone else's hard work the generation before (or 3 generations before).

the absolute return crowd are a waste of space and that bullshit does clogs the system.

so.. all of you who would bitch..

I say your dumb fucks..

and I ask the question what kind of grwoth will this tax add? and how much more tax would grow my revenue stream by what %?

and if the Government cant answer that question becuase it is being wasted in Afganistan so that JP Morgan can enjoy the benefits of owning a cheap gold mine, mean while the rest of us are told to pound sand?

but the general view will be fuck new taxes.. and most likely so for a good reason.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:37 | 1741807 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

The government isnt smart enough to use new taxes to increase productivity and raise my income 60 percent.

Just oppose all new taxes and hold the line until government is under control.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:21 | 1741710 GeneH3
GeneH3's picture

Not to worry. Remember, this is the clown that steadfastly maintains that paying taxes is voluntary. See

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:25 | 1741718 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Nice. Grab some more billions from the rich then the unfunded liabilities are still 60 trillions or something. Even if you stole everything from the rich, you'd still be in the multi trillion hole and will sucessfully turned the US into the USSR circa 1935 for good.

And the idea that the state takes 5$ here to pay for something there is ludicrious. Nobody with the best intentions can track a dollar once it goes up the state's bossom.



Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:38 | 1741816 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Actually, the government could take 100% of everyone's income right now and just barely get out of their hole.  Opps.  Don't want to give those fucktards any ideas.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:52 | 1741884 Chump
Chump's picture

The government could confiscate 100% of all wealth in America and only fund itself for a year.

Until we see a massive implosion in government spending, such that its force rattles windows in Hong Kong, raising any tax anywhere is a retarded waste of time.

Yes, the government needs more revenues, because its gone ahead and spent them already many times over, fucking thieving sociopaths.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:52 | 1742060 catacl1sm
catacl1sm's picture

Equating wealth to GDP and Federal Budget to Federal Debt is apples to oranges. The top .1% alone have $47.5 Trillion in wealth. The national income (GDP) is $14.7T, roughly just under the Federal Debt while the Federal Budget (while not yet approved for 2012) is $3.5 Trillion (I think..).

That being said, if we cut the Federal Budget in half tomorrow we'd dramatically increase the unemployment rate. How does the poor bastards survive until the real economy picks up the slack?

Additionally, our biggest problem is interest on money creation. Congress needs to end the Fed and go back to a sovereing currency. Gold backed would be nice, but a stable, non-interest bearing, fiat currency would do.

In short, Red for you. You seem to be about as smart as your avatar.

Turn off Fox News, where you obviously get your 'talking' points, and try doing some reading. Here's a good start for you:

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:10 | 1742109 Chump
Chump's picture

The top .1% alone have $47.5 Trillion in wealth.

Rofl!  Red back at ya!  Our biggest problem is "interest?"  What a donkey.  You would kill capital creation in one fell swoop while ensuring the unemployed would starve slowly in your utopia!  3.5 trillion dollar budget and here you are writing paragraphs to support raising a few tens of billions in taxes while doing NOTHING to address a single underlying problem in this economy, and you accuse me of using Fox News talking points?  It's right in front of you, and you still can't grasp it.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 19:34 | 1743375 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture


The top .1% alone have $47.5 Trillion in wealth

Yes, as per government calculations which never fail *sigh*

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:22 | 1741722 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

Fools and they paper. Lettin it get between them like that. All my life I've saved silver and it never once did me wrong.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:23 | 1741731 Steroid
Steroid's picture

"we’ll ask Americans who make more than a million dollars a year to contribute a little more"

Yeah, "ask" with a gun.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:44 | 1741733 nyse
nyse's picture



Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:24 | 1741742 dcb
dcb's picture

I know tyler post a single name for many people, and I am not a harry reid fan, but there is class warfare and it has been going on a long time. Not sure why educating people about this is bad. it seems if I were rich, I wouldn't want the lower, middle, and poor people to really understand how I have gamed the system in my favor. What I don't get is Zh often has posts about the destruction of the middle class, and knows class warfare is going on, so why are we so bent about the idea fo creating class warfare. we in fact need more class warfare. What do you think the protest on wall street is about, and I have seen many posts where ZH supports this. (WTF). Shitty post.


Now, it may not ba a solutions, and reid deserves crap for political pandering, and doing something only for campaign points instead of "being good for the country", Yeah, he sucks. But raising the issue of class warffare isn't bad in itself

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:36 | 1741798 Bob
Bob's picture

Apparently the memo advising sycophants and bottom feeders of the ruling class that charges of "class warfare" will no longer derail discussion has not yet gone out. 

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:13 | 1741958 Chump
Chump's picture

Why, because you said so?  Please.

The top 5% already pay over 60% of all income tax revenue collected in this country.  Maybe you need to readjust your definition of "fair share."

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:49 | 1742056 Bob
Bob's picture

My point is that "class war" is no longer effective in shutting people up.  It doesn't matter how quickly you can shuffle those rhetorical cards hoping to monte people into silence.  The division of wealth and ever more dim future speaks for itself. 

The ruling class overplayed their hand.  Got class warfare?  It's on like donkey kong. 

Buffett is playing it smart by arguing for lame reform.  Unfortunately, he's being shouted down by fools who can't see how this will play out without those token reforms. 

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:18 | 1742144 Chump
Chump's picture

People are going to be stupid and demand ever more from "the rich" at the hands of the government all while ignoring the fact that the government is the problem?  Sounds about right.  These token reforms are just that, token.  Meaningless.  Ineffectual.  And quickly forgotten when we still hit the wall at Mach 2.  The rich are going to be targets regardless, right or wrong.  I see no reason to abandon intelligence and argue in favor of foolishness just because the shitstorm is indeed coming.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:17 | 1742652 Bob
Bob's picture

I guess my only argument is that they brought it on themselves.  Nobody else wanted to see shit come to that.  But those people had no choice in the matter.  Hang on.  It's gonna be an interesting ride, imo. 

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 17:01 | 1742883 Chump
Chump's picture

Yeah interesting is a good word for it.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:18 | 1742653 Bob
Bob's picture


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 15:45 | 1742459 mephisto808
mephisto808's picture

We all would love a 0% income tax rate... oops, looks like GE, Exxon, and a dozen other multi-nationals, CEO's, and boardmembers aka the "Ultra Wealthy" have already figured out how to obtain this wonderful utopia you speak of.

I'm all for capitalism, but what we have is NOT that. It's a rigged game of cronyism and oligarchs.

The problem I have with a lot of ZH readers is... you people seem like informed, educated, critically thinking humans... how can you still be cheerleaders for these people? You blame government, yet who are the ones pulling the strings? THEY ARE.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:26 | 1741750 moonstears
moonstears's picture

Most(note I said "most", not all) millionaires will be moving funds around the globe or into assets to get below the threshold, whatever that is. Tax revenues will fall, then it's back to the drawing board to figure out how to get J6P on the hook for said taxes. Careful what you wish for.

P.S. I'm a joe 6 P, btw, just critically thinking into the future while it's still legal to do so.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:27 | 1741757 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

The sense I have is that the arguments against further taxation are legitimate. Normally higher taxation will not create an environment for job expansion. The problem is the Republicans do not have a majority in order to roll back this socialist agenda Obama has undertaken. The next two years we have to muddle through it until these socialists are removed. No other way to look at it anymore the democratic party has been taken over by the exteme left.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:38 | 1741809 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Sans, Dr. Paul, they are all socialists, and taxation of any sort is nothing but theft, and thus, indefensible under any circumstances.

Once stripped of their facade of integrity these immoral facts are what ensure the social decay we all live under.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:32 | 1741783 dbown1959
dbown1959's picture

Get money out of politics.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:41 | 1741833 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

How about getting the priorities in order? Get politics out of money.

Politics is evil, and therefore not required in a healthy society.

Money is (a) good, as it meets human needs of saving wealth over time and facilitating exchange.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:32 | 1741786 heatbarrier
heatbarrier's picture

Senator from Nevada proposing raising taxes.   What whould Bugsy Siegel say?

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:40 | 1741824 jjsilver
jjsilver's picture


Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:42 | 1741835 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Thanks for the caps lock. Otherwise I might've wasted my time reading it.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:53 | 1741889 Robert Neville
Robert Neville's picture

Harry doesn't like millionaires that unlike him make their money honestly.



Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:55 | 1741903 Gold Man-Sacks
Gold Man-Sacks's picture

How about a democrat tax?  Just tax democrats. 

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:58 | 1741912 tmosley
tmosley's picture

It should apply to republicans as well, as Republicans love to spend just as much as Dems.

Of course, Libertarians only pay as much in taxes as they want, while Communists get a 100% tax rate.

It's so crazy it might just work!

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:06 | 1741934 pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

Any income tax is immoral whether it be on the rich or the poor.  I believe a consumption tax with exemptions on necessities such food and clothing would be the only acceptable tax to me.  All americans who pay income taxes are being robbed by a non representative government.  We are a nation that was built on exploitation and that will continue.

I wish that I didn't have to participate in this scam but I know no other way to provide for my loved ones.

We have definitely downsized and grow and raise a lot of our own food ....but we still need income

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:05 | 1741939 The Continental
The Continental's picture

Obama is right:  if we give the government enough money it can create all the jobs we need and restore the economy!!!  Let's cut to the chace and sieze all gross income above $40,000. That's right, now we are all equal making $40,000. The government will spend all this money creating jobs and oua la, US economy thrives again. After all, whenever the federal government has gotten more revenue it has husbanded it wisely, paying dwon debt and making our finances the envy of the world. Now, with all these jobs and zero unemployment, we don't need entreprenuers anymore. Let's sieze all private wealth (i.e. savings accounts, 401ks, Keoughs, Trusts etc.) so everyone has nothing and disperse these monies to the poor people of Africa so they can have color TVs and AIDs drugs.

C'mon people: Keep Hope and Change Alive!!! Do it for "The One"


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!