This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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
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."
»
- 7971 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Imagine the record number of people reporting 999,000 dollars per year
It's unclear on what type of income a person making over a million will be taxed, but I assume all income. Good thing the NBA is on strike, or all the b'ballers would be calling their favorite pick up game player about now.
Why not just Remove the CAP on FICA? I could never understand this CAP anyhow. I would think, if there had to be any difference, it would be the opposite. Example: Let's say, the first $25,000 does not pay the 6.2%. With the rich getting richer at a faster rate in recent years, why is every dollar above $106,800 excused from paying this FICA Tax....and this is th Social Security part we often hear about there being a concern about. Can anyone calculate just how much is escaping, and the bulk of earnings is going to the top 10%...so just remove the CAP or explain why one ever existed in the first place.
I'll take a stab at it, it's really an insurance policy, not a defined benefit plan or retirement plan, it's a back stop. It also happens to be pretty darn expensive one. I've carried term insurance for years, up to a million bucks for my family, cost me less than a grand a year at the time (I've lowered it now as we've accumulated some assets over my lifetime). I've paid over $285,000 into FICA, the term insurance in total has cost less than $22,000. That's $285,000 that's out the window and spent 50 times over by the confiscators.
If I live to 78 after retirement, I might get it back, but in USD, which we almost all agree is toilet paper.
So, for all the people who are complaining, it's "class warfare" to make the very people who have benefitted the most out of the national debt, pay more to reduce it, but it's "taxing the parasites" when you rather place the burden on those people who can least afford it?
Obviously. Now we'd prefer that nobody get stuck paying taxes if possible, so you can't say we aren't idealists. Of course, that brings on massive cuts in government spending, which brings us back again to those who can least afford it, whatever "it" might be. Meh, fuck 'em if they won't tax themselves. Selfish parasites.
That's a false choice. The majority of people and married couples who will be stuck with this tax will qualify not because they are "banksters" or have "benefited" in some vaguely unfair way but instead will be the small business owners who provide most of the jobs in this country. In the end, if the Dems get their way the term "millionaire" will bear little resemblence to what most of you thing it does. The country is not bankrupt beacuse insufficient taxes are paid. We are bankrupt due to out of control spending by both parties - a condition not the slightest bit addressed by this tax.
Makes you wonder why we can't all get behind slashing our military machine. Most people agree on that--why is it that we somehow never have occassion to focus on that one? Somehow we're almost always fighting about something else.
Just like the issue of money in politics. Most people want it out.
Yet somehow the things almost everybody agrees on never get the sustained attention necessary for follow through.
Divided and conquered on so many silly fronts.
We should propose a cap tax. you will be tax all the earnings above 1 million.
Not bailing out wall street in 2008 polled pretty well too.
Expanding on a question above...
1. ZH constantly talks about the disparity in wealth in this country.
2. ZH against raising taxes on $1,000,000+ incomes (which would include many of the banksters we despise)
How do these two positions coincide with each other?
To answer your question: "they don't."
ZH contributors are ex-Wall Street types with a pile of financial loot amassed during the debt induced bubble years. They want to keep the loot; another words, they want to have their cake and eat it." And the best way to keep it as they see it, is:
In the end, ZH contributors are nothing more than ex-bankers on the run.
I thought about this after they presented the Wall Street protestors (posers) article a few days ago that had a very socialist slant. It occurred to me they present news with views from all angles, which makes sense to me and something I want from a board.
Many of us are opposed to increased taxes on anyone. It's inane to just state that since someone has money, the government is entitled to more of it, yet that is the only reason Reid, Obama, Pelosi, etc. ad nauseum, are prone to give.
Yet another TD article that belongs in the 'Hall of Shame." Buffet tax proposal will only bring in $20 billion per year in additional taxes. Buffet acknowledges that his proposal is symbolic and does not amount to more than flea fat as far as additional tax burden on the wealthy. Harry Reid's proposal of 5% 'millionaire tax' is 25 X greater than that proposed by Buffet/Obama and is actually more than just flea fat.
.
Present a new bill that all Congress members will personally pay off the deficit. They can keep their own salary but must forfeit all income from time of office to date. That would include all spouses income (if married) to each CONgress member. That way, cases such as Pee-low-see can return the millions of back door funds to her husbands and brothers companies.
Sounds good to me.
barry soetero can also turn in his Vatican account along with Timmy boy's Vatican account which could make a dent in the deficit
Why is everyone focused on tax revenue? The real issue here is entitlements. Please read Mary Meeker's USA inc. If we don't figure out how to stop Medicare and Medicaid, we're Italy in three years and tax revenue banter is trivial unless we're debating a 70% marginal tax rate.
Punishing high income earners is not the way to incentivize productivity and job creation. Notice how the monied interests always talk about taxing income, never their accrued wealth. Once they're safely inside the wealth and security castle they're all in favor of pulling up the drawbridge and lighting fire to the moat. Fuck'm I say.
There is no need to "take" anyone's wealth in a free market without crony capitalistic tools like licenses and other non-competitive arrangements. But, might I propose that all income taxes be eliminated. Instead, I propose a "wealth tax" which is a percentage charge against one's total net worth at the end of the calender year. I would exempt taxing net worth below the median of the population. This is intrinsically fair because in a capitalistic system one's benefit from a stable secure society is directly proportional to one's total capital held within the system. Further, this wealth tax would be dedicated strictly to paying down the national debt. In this manner, the wealthiest citizensy who will likely hold disproportionate political sway will have every incentive to pay off the debt and not incur it ever again (except in extreme circumstances such as war).
Imagine the renaissance that American enterprise would enjoy what without the drag of income taxes. And the wealthy would be incented to invest in productive enterprises lest their wealth be whittled down by annual taxes. America's total wealth is roughly $55 trillions. A 5% wealth tax would generate ~$3 trillion, enough to service the national debt and pay down all the principle within a decade.
Personally, my personal gross income is under $1 million but I am in the top 1% of wage earners. I have a net worth of ~$2 million. I would gladly pay $50,000 in wealth tax in lieu of income tax, gladly.
I say that the idle rich in particular need to be taxed hard. If you are doing nothing with your money, it will slowly be taken away.
A tax on wealth over $5 million of 5% per year would be great. If you do not show great performance in investments (well above 5% growth per year) then you are ilde or not deserving of your wealth.
Class warfare... I am up for it!
The rich have fucked us good. They own the corporations that pushed for "free trade" that decimated our economic base. They own the companies that use slave labor to "compete" with a decent living standard we have here. They run the schemes that are screwing us on healthcare (high costs, poor treatments). They have had their time and their fruit is lacking in it's benefits to our society.
Capitalism is awesome...to bad we do not have it here!
in additon to the poster, I'd appreciate it if Reid would wear a massive paper mache head. I'd suggest he wear Geithner, Bernanke - or maybe just a big asshole that fits over his head.
Class warfare, during economic crisis in America, is a way for the Obama Administration & Democrats to divert our attention away from the real issues that face the average American man and woman.
The politics of hate.
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us! sesli chat sesli sohbet