Soak the rich? Sure, but not just them..

Feb 28, 2009 Read more: The Santa Fe New Mexican 46
Soak the rich? Sure, but not just them... More on this site Send BermAodez to community-college board Bill Waters The New Mexican 2/28/2009 - 3/1/09 For all the time Mayor David Coss and the City Council had to ... Read more
Cynic

Santa Fe, NM

#24 Mar 3, 2009
Michael in ABQ wrote:
<quoted text>
You're questioning that I pay 20 times more than the average joe...I don't know. I do know this, I paid over 300K last year...what does the average Joe pay my friend?
How much did you have left over? I think you're completely missing the point.

Do you employ illegal immigrants too?

How much did you give to your church?

Do you expect any social services? Police, fire, ambulance? Do you expect to be protected by the US military for hostile foreign interests?

Why don't you and Jo just move down to the Caymans. We won't miss you, and you'll get to be with all of that money.
The

Santa Fe, NM

#25 Mar 3, 2009
Michael in ABQ wrote:
<quoted text>
You're questioning that I pay 20 times more than the average joe...I don't know. I do know this, I paid over 300K last year...what does the average Joe pay my friend?
internet lets you be who you want to be.

Since: Sep 08

Miyazaki

#26 Mar 3, 2009
As the old saying goes, "If you got nothin', you got nothin' to lose. On that basis, roughly half of all Americans, whose net worth is zero, or less, shouldn't have to pay anything at all for national defense. The rich should pay all expenses for defense, protective services, regulatory agencies, etc., because they are really the only ones benefiting from those services.

The richest people have the assets at risk. Therefore they should be paying all the expenses for protecting their assets. In my opinion, taxes should be based on wealth rather than income. That way, all tax levies will be based not only on who benefits the most, but also who can best afford to pay. And a flat tax would be just fine, say 5% of everybody's net worth every year.

For many Americans, whose net worth is less than zero, that would mean no taxes. If wealth were taxed with a flat tax, for every $100 payed by the top 60% of the wealthiest Americans, the remaining 40% would pay about 20 cents, since the bottom 40% of Americans own about 0.20% of the total wealth.
BillOfRights

United States

#27 Mar 3, 2009
Question wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, using your logic, what would incentivise anyone from creating wealth or money? If it is going to "take" it as you say, why would they create it only to have it taken from them.
If I work my but off knowing full well that that the masses are going to take it from me, I think that I would just join the masses. The problem then becomes that there is nothing to take any more, and the masses turn on themselves. Unless of course we live in some perfect environment where every single being understands its place within the hierarchy....which leads us to another issue; free will.
They are NOT trying to take it from you! You make more you should pay more in taxes! You poor baby, instead of paying 28% your going to have to pay 35% oh, I feel soooooo.....sorry for you! STFU
cactus jim

Albuquerque, NM

#28 Mar 3, 2009
RandyNason wrote:
Not many working people make over a quarter million a year, nor do they live in three-quarter million-dollar homes. I see nothing wrong with those who are luckier than most giving back to the communities that helped make it possible for them to be so successful in the first place.
if you tax the"luckier than most" to give to the parasites all you will get is more parasites and democrats.

Since: Oct 08

Questa, NM

#29 Mar 3, 2009
if the rich wrote:
<quoted text>
didn't risk their money to start companies, there would be no jobs.
They already gave, more is just Robin Hooding socialist stuff, the stuff you support.
Less than 1/10 of 1% of them the rest got it from their great grand parents.....
Rich

United States

#31 Mar 3, 2009
I agree with a flat tax. Take the lawyers and creative accountants out of the game. Without loopholes, the ultra wealthy would pay way more tax at a much lower base rate than they do now. The IRS would be much smaller as would the forms to file taxes. We could actually understand the forms and wouldn't waste so much time, energy, paper and money collecting the tax. That fits right in with my socialist agenda. Socialism has an important place in our society and economy along side capitalism. We value an educated populace, so we fund public schools, we don't want hard working people to lose their entire life savings and all their accumulated wealth paying for one unfortunate health problem, which is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US. Single Payer (Government) universal health care is socialist, but it will benefit businesses by taking health insurance burdens off of them, making them much more competitive in the global market, where most all other industrialized countries have socialized health care. Better health across the entire population increases productivity and reduces the risk of disease spreading. Health care is too important to trust to capitalist predators. Capitalism with proper ethical oversight is a good thing, but it must be balanced with socialism to make the best system.
Dumb

Rio Rancho, NM

#32 Mar 4, 2009
Steve van Dresser wrote:
As the old saying goes, "If you got nothin', you got nothin' to lose. On that basis, roughly half of all Americans, whose net worth is zero, or less, shouldn't have to pay anything at all for national defense. The rich should pay all expenses for defense, protective services, regulatory agencies, etc., because they are really the only ones benefiting from those services.
The richest people have the assets at risk. Therefore they should be paying all the expenses for protecting their assets. And a flat tax would be just fine, say 5% of everybody's net worth every year.
For many Americans, whose net worth is less than zero, that would mean no taxes. If wealth were taxed with a flat tax, for every $100 payed by the top 60% of the wealthiest Americans, the remaining 40% would pay about 20 cents, since the bottom 40% of Americans own about 0.20% of the total wealth.
This is one of the most flawed opinions I have read on this thread in a long time for the following reasons:

1)taxes to be paid by "who benefits the most." You then go on to note that the rich are only ones to benefit from defense and other agencies and are subject to lose the most therefore should pay for it. Last I heard, freedom is something we all benefit from, not just the rich. Without a strong defense, I am pretty sure we Americans would be speaking another language right now.
2)"In my opinion, taxes should be based on wealth rather than income. That way, all tax levies will be based not only on who benefits the most, but also who can best afford to pay." You seem to conveniently forget that the folks that benefit the most from most programs are the poor; the wealthy don't need public education at all because they can afford private school, they don't use the indigent care at hospitals because the pay for their own insurance and the story goes on and on.

Sum it up with an old saying: "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free." Well someone had to buy the cow, que no?

Since: Sep 08

Miyazaki

#34 Mar 4, 2009
Dumb wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one of the most flawed opinions I have read on this thread in a long time for the following reasons:
1)taxes to be paid by "who benefits the most." You then go on to note that the rich are only ones to benefit from defense and other agencies and are subject to lose the most therefore should pay for it. Last I heard, freedom is something we all benefit from, not just the rich. Without a strong defense, I am pretty sure we Americans would be speaking another language right now.
2)"In my opinion, taxes should be based on wealth rather than income. That way, all tax levies will be based not only on who benefits the most, but also who can best afford to pay." You seem to conveniently forget that the folks that benefit the most from most programs are the poor; the wealthy don't need public education at all because they can afford private school, they don't use the indigent care at hospitals because the pay for their own insurance and the story goes on and on.
Sum it up with an old saying: "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free." Well someone had to buy the cow, que no?
If you lived in the ghetto, you probably would be speaking another language right now. And you could have a free speech soapbox to stand on, if you had a few spare hundreds of millions for a radio or TV station or a newspaper.

Who gets the benefits; the poor get the peanuts the rich get the dollars.$180 billion for AIG; how much of that helps poor people?$700 billion in bailouts for bankers; how many poor bankers or poor bank stockholders do you know? The entire Food Stamp Program (2008 federal budget),$36.7 billion, that's less than a fifth the amount given to those starving insurance execs, just at AIG in the past year.

School breakfasts and lunches; $14.6 -- compare that to Citibanks $50 billion bailout plus $200 in guarantees. Medicaid, the most expensive medical program still costs quite a bit less than the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. How many poor people benefit from those bailouts?
Mark Wright

Tularosa, NM

#35 Mar 4, 2009
Steve van Dresser wrote:
<quoted text>
If you lived in the ghetto, you probably would be speaking another language right now. And you could have a free speech soapbox to stand on, if you had a few spare hundreds of millions for a radio or TV station or a newspaper.
Who gets the benefits; the poor get the peanuts the rich get the dollars.$180 billion for AIG; how much of that helps poor people?$700 billion in bailouts for bankers; how many poor bankers or poor bank stockholders do you know? The entire Food Stamp Program (2008 federal budget),$36.7 billion, that's less than a fifth the amount given to those starving insurance execs, just at AIG in the past year.
School breakfasts and lunches; $14.6 -- compare that to Citibanks $50 billion bailout plus $200 in guarantees. Medicaid, the most expensive medical program still costs quite a bit less than the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. How many poor people benefit from those bailouts?
Great post Steve.
Rich

United States

#36 Mar 4, 2009
We don't hear any complaints about socialism from the bankers and investors at AIG etc. Why is socialism only evil when it benefits poor and working people?
Dumb

Rio Rancho, NM

#37 Mar 4, 2009
Steve van Dresser wrote:
<quoted text>
If you lived in the ghetto, you probably would be speaking another language right now. And you could have a free speech soapbox to stand on, if you had a few spare hundreds of millions for a radio or TV station or a newspaper.
Who gets the benefits; the poor get the peanuts the rich get the dollars.$180 billion for AIG; how much of that helps poor people?$700 billion in bailouts for bankers; how many poor bankers or poor bank stockholders do you know? The entire Food Stamp Program (2008 federal budget),$36.7 billion, that's less than a fifth the amount given to those starving insurance execs, just at AIG in the past year.
School breakfasts and lunches; $14.6 -- compare that to Citibanks $50 billion bailout plus $200 in guarantees. Medicaid, the most expensive medical program still costs quite a bit less than the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. How many poor people benefit from those bailouts?
I thought we were disagreeing on taxes and who pays them. What you are NOW arguing does not really have to do with taxes directly, it has to do with corporate corruption and a failed system of easy credit. You are way off the original point, but since you digress......I might point out that the single biggest reason that we are in this financial mess, is because loans were made to people that should not have had them in the first place. Now, everyone, but the poor, are going to be paying for who knows how long.
Really dumb

Santa Fe, NM

#38 Mar 4, 2009
Dumb wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought we were disagreeing on taxes and who pays them. What you are NOW arguing does not really have to do with taxes directly, it has to do with corporate corruption and a failed system of easy credit. You are way off the original point, but since you digress......I might point out that the single biggest reason that we are in this financial mess, is because loans were made to people that should not have had them in the first place. Now, everyone, but the poor, are going to be paying for who knows how long.
but whatever level of responsibility held by those who took out these loans is dwarfed by those "experts" who made them, promoted them, repackaged and sold them, gave them A-1 ratings and managed the unregulated Ponzi scheme of the mortgage industry.
Dumb

Rio Rancho, NM

#39 Mar 4, 2009
I think that is what I said....a "system" of easy credit. Everyone is responsible. But still, the original topic of taxes and WHO pays them is what this is about.

It just burns my hide to see all of the abuse that the system allows. I was in the Santa Fe Civic Housing authority this week and had to wait to fill out some paperwork for a tenant of mine. Not a single person in the place seeking housing assistance spoke a lick of english. Those are my taxes paying for people who are in all probability not even a legal resident of this country.
Patricia

Albuquerque, NM

#41 Mar 4, 2009
RandyNason wrote:
Not many working people make over a quarter million a year, nor do they live in three-quarter million-dollar homes. I see nothing wrong with those who are luckier than most giving back to the communities that helped make it possible for them to be so successful in the first place.
Luckier?

Hon, when you spend 10 years working a minimum of 80 hours per week and taking a minimal salary that would figure well below minimum wage to get a company off the ground, employ people and provide a service to the community, you aren't "lucky".

When you're willing to make that kind of personal sacrifice, get back to us and tell us how freaking "lucky" you are,****.
Patricia

Albuquerque, NM

#42 Mar 4, 2009
Steve van Dresser wrote:
The richest people have the assets at risk. Therefore they should be paying all the expenses for protecting their assets.
How are my assets being protected when you're allowed to vote to steal them so that you don't have to go out and bust your @ss?

Since: Sep 08

Miyazaki

#43 Mar 4, 2009
You pay part of your wealth to protect the rest from being taken -- by burglars, hostile countries, forest and brush fires, or shady businessmen. There is no question that you must pay. The only question is how much.

For too long, the rich haven't been paying their fair share. As Warren Buffett noted, of all of his very rich acquaintances, none of them paid as high an effective tax rate as their secretaries did. Something is terribly wrong with the tax system when all of the Fortune 500 top managers pay at a lower tax rate than their clerical help. It's not because they are clever, it is because they are thieves.

Since: Sep 08

Portales, NM

#44 Mar 5, 2009
I read a funny article tonight. All these rich democrat senators are suddenly not at all happy about Obama's tax the rich plan.

What makes it especialy funny is when he gave his last big speach to them everytime he mentioned a different way to make the rich pay Pelosi would jump up and start aplauding then all the rest of them would join in.

That was at least a week or more ago and they're just now realizing that they are rich and will have to pay those insane taxes too and they are not happy about it at all.
Too much mercury

Rio Rancho, NM

#45 Mar 5, 2009
Steve van Dresser wrote:
You pay part of your wealth to protect the rest from being taken -- by burglars, hostile countries, forest and brush fires, or shady businessmen. There is no question that you must pay. The only question is how much.
For too long, the rich haven't been paying their fair share. As Warren Buffett noted, of all of his very rich acquaintances, none of them paid as high an effective tax rate as their secretaries did. Something is terribly wrong with the tax system when all of the Fortune 500 top managers pay at a lower tax rate than their clerical help. It's not because they are clever, it is because they are thieves.
in your sushi.
Dont

Santa Fe, NM

#46 Mar 5, 2009
Babe Rainbow wrote:
I read a funny article tonight. All these rich democrat senators are suddenly not at all happy about Obama's tax the rich plan.
What makes it especialy funny is when he gave his last big speach to them everytime he mentioned a different way to make the rich pay Pelosi would jump up and start aplauding then all the rest of them would join in.
That was at least a week or more ago and they're just now realizing that they are rich and will have to pay those insane taxes too and they are not happy about it at all.
be a dope. There will always be other opinions when you get into the details - except if you are a republican and when Boehner decides that none of them are allowed to speak up and be part of the solution. There is strong consensus on restoring the the progressive income tax. The only dissent I've heard has been about restrictions on charitable deductions which are more necessary than ever. They'll work it out.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The Santa Fe New Mexican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Living with voices: S.F. man copes with schizop... (Dec '08) Feb '15 LucitaAranda 34
News Beaver Toyota relocation plan hits annex snag (Nov '08) Feb '15 Hoka Huste 50
News Pro-choice stance a deal breaker for these Demo... (Oct '08) Jan '15 apodacamel 15
News Small-scale room design tips (Apr '09) Jan '15 Pavlos Lombardi 2
News Santa Fe Horse Park co-owner to lose home to fo... (Feb '09) Jan '15 sharonk 16
News Snow Trax: Ski season wraps up (Mar '09) Dec '14 Paul Szeman 12
News 'The Awakening' lies dormant amid legal dispute (Oct '09) Dec '14 cfb 26
More from around the web