Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Concerned that High Taxes are Coming?

Recs

9

September 22, 2009 – Comments (9)

How did America do from 1935 until 1980 with the highest earners paying 70% income tax?

Something about a strong middle class, and an American Dream?

How have we done since with the highest earners paying 30%?

Something about debt, unsustainable medicare and the end of retirement?

Live and learn.

I'm concerned that higher taxes are not coming.

9 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 22, 2009 at 11:38 PM, starbucks4ever (97.89) wrote:

The worst part of it is that even if higher taxes do come, it won't increase the effective tax rate by a cent. The government will leave a small loophole through which all the tax revenues you're counting on will be flowing out. This loophole will be painfully obvious to you and to everyone else around you. When you write to your representative about it, he will write you back saying that he looked at the loophole with a magnifying glass and didn't notice anything. 

Report this comment
#2) On September 23, 2009 at 12:55 AM, RonChapmanJr (33.19) wrote:

-1 rec

Yeah, no other factors in this country changed during that time period...

Report this comment
#3) On September 23, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Option1307 (30.12) wrote:

Would you be paying 70% if the rules were changed back?

If not than this is pointless, it's easy to say "tax them more" when you are not part of the group who will be forced to pay.

Report this comment
#4) On September 23, 2009 at 1:44 AM, devoish (96.28) wrote:

#3) It is not pointless, it is a history lesson many people seem to want me to not mention.

#2) Another factor is union membership of the workforce was at 35% for the same time period, 1930 until 1980. Union membership declined when Reagan passed right to work laws and membership is now at 8%.

#1) It is not hopeless, vote more carefully.

Every time I am stuck in traffic, I think being stuck in traffic is another high cost of low taxes.

Report this comment
#5) On September 23, 2009 at 5:20 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Spending is the 800 lb Gorilla in the room along with his brother unfunded obligations,

Politicians learned long ago that they could bribe us with our own money and when that was spent, they bribed us with our kid's money.

If you think that voting for any party over another would change anything, you are mistaken. Power currupts. You are better off voting for independents that don't have a power base to back them.

As far as the decline of unions leading to the decline of the economy,  the unions wreaked havoc on the airline industry and destroyed the auto industry and since their party had the power at the time, they were rewarded for it at the expense of bond holders. Power corrupts with the unions as well.

Report this comment
#6) On September 23, 2009 at 9:40 PM, devoish (96.28) wrote:

As far as the decline of unions leading to the decline of the economy,  the unions wreaked havoc on the airline industry and destroyed the auto industry and since their party had the power at the time, they were rewarded for it at the expense of bond holders.

For ten years prior to GM's bailout the unions kept renegotiating benefits and pay at greater and greater loss to the members and greater and greater gain to GM's financial position. Nobody was screwed worse than the union members who traded salary in the 80's for retirement and healthcare they are not getting in 2010.

The bondholders renegotiated nothing until bankruptcy forced their hand, and then it went through the legal system except where bondholders thought they could get a better deal from  Obama.

In other countries, for example Qatar, the obligations of GM to its employees legally ranks ahead of bondholders and all other investors, and that is the way it should be here too.

By a large margin most of America became better off when elected officials were bribed by union votes, a shadow of Democracy, than bribed by corporate dollars, a shadow of Fascism.

Unfunded (so raise the taxes then) obligations can be solved, but not by borrowing today in the hope of growth paying enough lower taxes.

And finally the 800lb Gorilla is not Government borrowing bankrupting America, it is corporate investment overseas transferring American dollars into the hands of foreign Gov'ts and their citizens (China's growing middle class) and private interests. All those increased tax dollars Reagan promised us from lowering corporate taxes are being paid to the Chinese, Indian, and Middle Eastern Governments, or hidden in Liechtenstein or the Cayman Islands. Let's hope the Chinese start buying stuff from us soon, and not just from our corporate executives or Alstry will look like an optomist, and we will all be pledging allegiance to a bank, just like the shills on CNBC.

Rant ended.

Report this comment
#7) On September 23, 2009 at 11:56 PM, starbucks4ever (97.89) wrote:

"It is not hopeless, vote more carefully."

For whom? If you suggest getting good laws from a bunch of Republican and Democratic politicians in any combination, I regret to inform you that the solution of this pair of simultaneous equations is a null set :)  

Report this comment
#8) On September 24, 2009 at 1:27 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

In other countries, for example Qatar, the obligations of GM to its employees legally ranks ahead of bondholders and all other investors, and that is the way it should be here too!

And in our country that is totally against the law and the people in power did it anyway.

Once you say that the people that agree with you are above the law, it's the time to admit that you are the problem.

A lot of retirees invested their life savings in GM bonds based on the law that you overlooked to destroy them.

Report this comment
#9) On September 24, 2009 at 9:15 PM, devoish (96.28) wrote:

Chris.

I do not agree that the obligations of GM to its employees were held above the rights of bondholders and other investors.

The bondholders made the best deal they could. They did so because their outcome was better than they expected in bankruptcy court.

There were different bondholders. the senior bondholders were paid in full. There was not enough money left to make the subordinate bondholders whole, so they negotiated a deal to not lose everything and instead received 1/3rd of new GM as common shareholders.

The law was followed, just fine.

Zloj, been here, done this.

Kucinich, Boxer, Feingold, Weiner, Sanders, Paul.

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement