Today I will join in solidarity the peaceful protesters at Liberty Plaza in New York City who are "Occupying Wall Street."
For far too long in this country we have allowed the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
I believe in a nation where everyone gets a fair share of the fruits of our labor and where everyone pays a fair share for what they receive.
I am asking the United States government to raise my taxes and not allow the Republicans to use this economic recession as an opportunity to strip the basic programs that protect our most vulnerable.
Lastly, I am demanding that the big banks and corporations stop unduly influencing our government to make decisions that are not in the best interest of the majority of our citizens.
We need to re-examine our whole American political system that allows corporations and their lobbyists to rule over the people.
-Russell Simmons
Read more: http://globalgrind.c...s#ixzz1ZSCiQ9Lr
I am asking the govt to raise my taxes
Started by
Raynequeen
, Sep 30 2011 04:30 PM
61 replies to this topic
#6
-
- VibeTribe
- 11,788 posts
Posted 30 September 2011 - 04:38 PM
I wish I could say yes, and I would, if that wasn't an epic typo-filled post:really slow clap:
Admirable for him to stand, but i have to wonder; is more tsx and a call for those misallocating tje tax, teally responsible enough to regulate themselbes?
#14
-
- VibeTribe
- 4,913 posts
Posted 30 September 2011 - 05:11 PM
:really slow clap:
Admirable for him to stand, but i have to wonder; is more tax and a call for those misallocating the tax, really responsible enough to regulate themselves?
proofread'd
doesn't ron paul want to leave the responsibility to corporations regulate themselves?
#24
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,664 posts
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:15 PM
Today I will join in solidarity the peaceful protesters at Liberty Plaza in New York City who are "Occupying Wall Street."
For far too long in this country we have allowed the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
I believe in a nation where everyone gets a fair share of the fruits of our labor and where everyone pays a fair share for what they receive.
I am asking the United States government to raise my taxes and not allow the Republicans to use this economic recession as an opportunity to strip the basic programs that protect our most vulnerable.
Lastly, I am demanding that the big banks and corporations stop unduly influencing our government to make decisions that are not in the best interest of the majority of our citizens.
We need to re-examine our whole American political system that allows corporations and their lobbyists to rule over the people.
-Russell Simmons
Read more: http://globalgrind.c...s#ixzz1ZSCiQ9Lr
Reality of raising taxes:
Less money to spend, leading to another recession and loss of more jobs.
(And I am a Democrat).
----
What services would you like to see saved for the poor and vulnerable.
----
A flip side argument to this is:
A co worker of mine's good friend got laid off. Recently he was offered a job making 80K. He turned it down because the government money he was receiving for his kids in college and Unemployement far out weighed the 80K job.
In that one example it shows how convuluted the system is.
Although your stance is noble, the real problem is the system not the corporations.
#29
-
- VibeTribe
- 13,305 posts
- LocationLI/NY
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:36 PM
Simmons, as is anybody, is free to donate additional money to the gov't when he files his taxes. No, he's asking the gov't to raise everyone else's taxes.
Simmons, as is anybody, is free to ask the government to raise taxes on its wealthiest citizens as part of a greater effort to solve the worst economic crisis of his lifetime. that's Bill Of Rights 101, sir.
#31
-
- VibeTribe
- 747 posts
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:36 PM
Reality of raising taxes:
Less money to spend, leading to another recession and loss of more jobs.
(And I am a Democrat).
I have to disagree here - this would be valid if the wealthy actually spent every dollar they earned (or saved in taxes in this case) AND if they spent it within this country. My guess would be most money they do not pay in taxes just sits in their own bank accounts and corporate investments and probably does not trickle down into the economy.
Then they pass it down to their heirs when they die who no longer have to pay taxes on it since Bush got rid of that millionaires death tax.
Double savings!
#32
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,883 posts
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:39 PM
A history of economics has proven time and time again that fiat currencies are not sustainable. Period. You can believe that the problem is in the corporation, but it's false. The problem is in the federal reserve fiat money system and the government that has gone crazy under the illusion of being able to spend far out of the countries means and just ask the money "gods" for more.
#33
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 16,318 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:40 PM
2011 Deaths – Need to Consider Extensions and Filing 2011 Form 706 to Elect Portability
Practitioners with 2011 estate clients should be aware that the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 included a portability provision for the applicable exclusion amount ($5 million for 2011 and 2012). Under this provision, if a spouse dies after 2010 and all of his or her $5 million is not applied toward the exemption, the unused portion can be added to the applicable exclusion amount of the surviving spouse.
To take advantage of portability, however, the unused portion must be transferred from the estate of the first spouse to die to the surviving spouse. This can only be done by timely filing an estate tax return (2011 Form 706 ), even if no tax is due (IRC Sec. 2010©(5)). If a timely return is not filed, any excess exclusion amount is lost forever and is unavailable at the death of the surviving spouse. (See detailed instructions in next article.) To avoid falling into this trap, practitioners should discuss with their clients the benefit of filing the federal estate tax return for the first spouse. Over the next few weeks and months, it is very important to file extensions (Form 4768) or Form 706 for early 2011 deaths within the nine-month deadline (starting October 3, 2011) that is quickly approaching.
Practitioners with 2011 estate clients should be aware that the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 included a portability provision for the applicable exclusion amount ($5 million for 2011 and 2012). Under this provision, if a spouse dies after 2010 and all of his or her $5 million is not applied toward the exemption, the unused portion can be added to the applicable exclusion amount of the surviving spouse.
To take advantage of portability, however, the unused portion must be transferred from the estate of the first spouse to die to the surviving spouse. This can only be done by timely filing an estate tax return (2011 Form 706 ), even if no tax is due (IRC Sec. 2010©(5)). If a timely return is not filed, any excess exclusion amount is lost forever and is unavailable at the death of the surviving spouse. (See detailed instructions in next article.) To avoid falling into this trap, practitioners should discuss with their clients the benefit of filing the federal estate tax return for the first spouse. Over the next few weeks and months, it is very important to file extensions (Form 4768) or Form 706 for early 2011 deaths within the nine-month deadline (starting October 3, 2011) that is quickly approaching.
#34
-
- VibeTribe
- 747 posts
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:42 PM
2011 Deaths – Need to Consider Extensions and Filing 2011 Form 706 to Elect Portability
Practitioners with 2011 estate clients should be aware that the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 included a portability provision for the applicable exclusion amount ($5 million for 2011 and 2012). Under this provision, if a spouse dies after 2010 and all of his or her $5 million is not applied toward the exemption, the unused portion can be added to the applicable exclusion amount of the surviving spouse.
To take advantage of portability, however, the unused portion must be transferred from the estate of the first spouse to die to the surviving spouse. This can only be done by timely filing an estate tax return (2011 Form 706 ), even if no tax is due (IRC Sec. 2010©(5)). If a timely return is not filed, any excess exclusion amount is lost forever and is unavailable at the death of the surviving spouse. (See detailed instructions in next article.) To avoid falling into this trap, practitioners should discuss with their clients the benefit of filing the federal estate tax return for the first spouse. Over the next few weeks and months, it is very important to file extensions (Form 4768) or Form 706 for early 2011 deaths within the nine-month deadline (starting October 3, 2011) that is quickly approaching.
Tax codes...
I have NO idea what any of this stuff means when I read it...
#36
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,664 posts
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:46 PM
I have to disagree here - this would be valid if the wealthy actually spent every dollar they earned (or saved in taxes in this case) AND if they spent it within this country. My guess would be most money they do not pay in taxes just sits in their own bank accounts and corporate investments and probably does not trickle down into the economy.
Then they pass it down to their heirs when they die who no longer have to pay taxes on it since Bush got rid of that millionaires death tax.
Double savings!
The problem with your response is Rayne stated she is asking for HER taxes to be raised, not the rich to be taxed more.
I am assuming she is not wealthy (as I am not either), this means taxes go up from say 36% to 38%.
That is 2% of every ones pay. Say the avg is 40K (for argument and maths sake). That would be an extra 800 spent by every person working per year.
800 * 100,000,000 (people working 1/3 of the country's population) (again for the same argument sake).
That is 80 Billion dollars taken out of the economy and put into the governments hands. And we know they are not the most competant group.
That would be a big hit to the economy, which would lead to economy suffering. More unemployment.
#37
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 16,318 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:48 PM
Link to the bill and statute: http://www.gpo.gov/f...ent-detail.html
#38
-
- VibeTribe
- 11,788 posts
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:49 PM
NoThe problem with your response is Rayne stated she is asking for HER taxes to be raised, not the rich to be taxed more.
She was posting an article, and used the headline of the article as the title of the thread.
(not that I'm her, so I'm not 100% sure, but that's what it looks like)
#40
-
- VibeTribe
- 710 posts
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:50 PM
So this dude thinks that sending the government more money, the same government that miss-spent what they already got, is now somehow going to spend it wisely and stop taking money from the folks who bought them their positions and stop them from profiting by scamming the system they bought and paid for? Yeah, that
#41
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 16,318 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:51 PM
[quote name='beerzrkr']So this dude thinks that sending the government more money, the same government that miss-spent what they already got, is now somehow going to spend it wisely and stop taking money from the folks who bought them their positions and stop them from profiting by scamming the system they bought and paid for? Yeah, that
#42
-
- VibeTribe
- 747 posts
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:53 PM
The problem with your response is Rayne stated she is asking for HER taxes to be raised, not the rich to be taxed more.
I am assuming she is not wealthy (as I am not either), this means taxes go up from say 36% to 38%.
That is 2% of every ones pay. Say the avg is 40K (for argument and maths sake). That would be an extra 800 spent by every person working per year.
800 * 100,000,000 (people working 1/3 of the country's population) (again for the same argument sake).
That is 80 Billion dollars taken out of the economy and put into the governments hands. And we know they are not the most competant group.
That would be a big hit to the economy, which would lead to economy suffering. More unemployment.
No - she was posting a quote from Russell Simmons, not asking the govt to take more from her.
#46
-
- VibeTribe
- 11,788 posts
Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:55 PM
[quote name='beerzrkr']So this dude thinks that sending the government more money, the same government that miss-spent what they already got, is now somehow going to spend it wisely and stop taking money from the folks who bought them their positions and stop them from profiting by scamming the system they bought and paid for? Yeah, that
