I think it is time to fight back.
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class,
the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
– Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway
Abstract: Welcome to World War III
Despite increasing personal financial hardship, most Americans remain unaware of the economic world war currently unfolding. An all-pervasive corporate and government propaganda campaign has effectively obscured this blatant reality. After extensive analysis, it is evident that World War III is a war between the richest one-tenth of one percent of the global population and 99.9 percent of humanity. Or, as I have called it, The Economic Elite Vs. The People [18]. This war has been a one-sided attack thus far. However, as we have seen throughout the world in recent months, the people are beginning to fight back. The following report is a statistical analysis of the systemic economic attacks against the American people.
more here
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25967
Looks like that is what is happening...
Now here are some interesting stastistics from the IRS
(emphasis mine)
"No income tax was paid by 1,470 of the 235,413 taxpayers earning $1 million or more in 2009, compared with the 959 taxpayers with million-dollar-plus incomes who paid no income taxes in 2007."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/04/us-usa-economy-incomes-idUSTRE77302W20110804
"To further demonstrate how the mega-wealthy have seized control our political process, consider that the richest 400 Americans paid 30% of their income in taxes in 1995, but they now pay only 18%"
Wealth ?
In total, US millionaire households have at least $45.9 trillion in wealth, the majority of this wealth is held within the upper one-tenth of one percent of the population.
If all this isn't obscene enough, to further demonstrate how the global economy has now been completely rigged, Deloitte's analysis predicated, based on current trends, that US millionaire households will see a 225% increase in wealth to $87.1 trillion by 2020. Accounting for wealth hidden in offshore accounts, they are projected to have over $100 trillion in total within the next decade.
Most people cannot even comprehend how much $1 trillion is, let alone $46 trillion. One trillion is equal to 1000 billion, or $1,000,000,000,000 [46]. To put it in perspective, last year the entire cost of feeding all 40 million Americans on food stamps was $65 billion [28].
Now consider, according to the latest IRS data, only 0.076% of the population, less than one-tenth of one percent, earned over $1 million [37] in 2009.
Quote from: Windpower on August 12, 2011, 10:27:03 AM
"No income tax was paid by 1,470 of the 235,413 taxpayers earning $1 million or more in 2009, compared with the 959 taxpayers with million-dollar-plus incomes who paid no income taxes in 2007."
It's not always so black and white. 2008 was a massive downturn in the economy. I know many people that may have earned $1 million, but paid little or no taxes from a loss carry forward from 2008. Also the $1 million is gross income and doesn't account for the amount in losses from real estate in 2008 and 2009 (capital loss). There are other larger economic forces from 2007-2010, but in general you are right, the rich pay less in taxes.
I don't think they've seized control. They were always in control. The founding fathers were some of the richest people in the country.
It is true that most of the Founding Fathers were rich, but nearly all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were penniless after the war of independence. And, if Warren Buffett has suddenly become embarrassed over his riches, he can feel free to donate to worthy causes.
Quote from: Woodsrule on August 12, 2011, 12:11:26 PM
It is true that most of the Founding Fathers were rich, but nearly all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were penniless after the war of independence. And, if Warren Buffett has suddenly become embarrassed over his riches, he can feel free to donate to worthy causes.
Like this?
Buffett donates $37bn to charity (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5115920.stm)
Ajax, exactly like that. I was being facetious; some folks demand that all folks who are "rich" and therefore must be evil, should empty their bank accounts for the "less fortunate."
not necessarily evil
just out of touch
a quick story
a friend of mine flies a Gulf Stream for (name of company deleted)
he recently flew one of the directors to London for a meeting/vacation with his family
So while Jeff sat in his hotel he had to buy his own internet since 'they' didn't think that the $10/day was a valid expense for their captain chauffer
to put this in perspective he filled the Gulf Stream with almost $18,000 worth of fuel for the trip from UGN to LHR
Out of touch, or just plain miserly? What a cheap (expletive deleted).
This is an article from 1996 but pertinent to the topic of Financial Terrorism. President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve
and Executive Order 11110 http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo2.htm (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo2.htm)
Some new (actually old) facts are coming out since Carolyn Kennedy's decision to the early release of her mother, Jacqueline Kennedy's tapes. Her mom didn't want them released for 50yrs to prevent any back lash to her children & their families.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jackie-kennedy-tapes-lyndon-johnson-assasinated-jfk-2011-8
There's lots of articles, I'm just citing a couple.
Financial terrorism - things haven't changed much since Rome [waiting]
Quote from: Windpower on August 12, 2011, 02:05:27 PM
not necessarily evil
just out of touch
a quick story
a friend of mine flies a Gulf Stream for (name of company deleted)
he recently flew one of the directors to London for a meeting/vacation with his family
So while Jeff sat in his hotel he had to buy his own internet since 'they' didn't think that the $10/day was a valid expense for their captain chauffer
to put this in perspective he filled the Gulf Stream with almost $18,000 worth of fuel for the trip from UGN to LHR
I believe the terms you like to use are "non-sequitur" and "logical fallacy". I suggest they are applicable in this case. Just saying...
Every time I hear one of these "the rich have too much" kind of arguments, I ask the same question: How much do you think the rich should have? What say you guys?
QuoteEvery time I hear one of these "the rich have too much" kind of arguments, I ask the same question: How much do you think the rich should have? What say you guys?
I have never heard anyone here state that "the rich have too much". I have however read many posts that describe how the rich have too much because they are the ones who have rigged things in their favor. There is a crucial difference between these two points, one that you seem to miss.
When I was very young (14-15 yo) my buddies and I used to get together a couple times a week to play poker, 25 cent ante. Two of the guys almost always won, and won big. I admired their intelligence and prowess and tried my best to study and emulate them, until one night when we caught them cheating. My best friend, a football and wrestling star, flattened one of them while the other ran out the door. Swift and effective justice.
Maybe we just should have just laid down and admitted that we rightly deserved to be cheated.
Quote from: dug on August 12, 2011, 10:33:54 PM
When I was very young (14-15 yo) my buddies and I used to get together a couple times a week to play poker, 25 cent ante. Two of the guys almost always won, and won big. I admired their intelligence and prowess and tried my best to study and emulate them, until one night when we caught them cheating. My best friend, a football and wrestling star, flattened one of them while the other ran out the door. Swift and effective justice.
Maybe we just should have just laid down and admitted that we rightly deserved to be cheated.
[cool] heh
Quote from: dug on August 12, 2011, 10:11:23 PM
I have never heard anyone here state that "the rich have too much". I have however read many posts that describe how the rich have too much because they are the ones who have rigged things in their favor. There is a crucial difference between these two points, one that you seem to miss.
I'm not defending cheats or crooks. Are you suggesting that everyone who succeeds is a cheat or rigged the system? Millions of hard-working honest people might find that offensive.
The formula for success in America has not changed for decades. It generally involves determination, perseverence, hard work, and education. And luck. There is no caste system or secret club and handshake. If you want it in America, it's there.
There will always be people who have more than others. There will always be those who need our help. It's worked that way since the dawn of mankind.
At 15 I was running a fairly successful lawn business. I earned a chunk of change by the standards then. I saved from day one. My dad helped me open a retirement savings plan at USAA. I still have that money. That must be some of the rigging you referred to earlier?
If I had any advantage it was parents who instilled in me a work ethic and morals and taught me the rules of the world. I hope I have been able to pass those along to my kids. My dad was my hero when I was younger in an era when you were supposed to hate your parents. I miss him.
I've done fairly well, and yet one of my favorite sites is a forum that caters to simple living and self-reliance. This forum. There is a connection if you think about it. Based on your posts and experiences, you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You seem like a very hard-working and industrious man. I'd wager you are better off than billions of your fellow man on our little blue planet. Who rigged the system for you?
you speak truth, dug
It is not a level playing field
Quote from: Windpower on August 12, 2011, 11:15:23 PM
you speak truth, dug
It is not a level playing field
How many acres on your place? Does one man need all that? Sell everything but the area your home is on and donate the rest to charity. There are billions on this planet who would love to have a piece of the beautiful place you have. Help level the playing field.
"How many acres on your place?"
105
"Does one man need all that?"
maybe not but we are focused on helping people that do not have resources to grow their own food
"Sell everything but the area your home is on and donate the rest to charity. There are billions on this planet who would love to have a piece of the beautiful place you have. Help level the playing field"
"
We are working toward that .. a co-op of gardeners and animal husbandry
Water pumped by wind and solar, vegetables produced from heritage seeds
it is a difficult project but not impossible. We do not have unlimited capital as we are not millionaires but we believe we can make a difference
Oh and BTW what are you doing to level the playing field
Quote from: Windpower on August 12, 2011, 11:59:41 PM
"How many acres on your place?"
105
"Does one man need all that?"
maybe not but we are focused on helping people that do not have resources to grow their own food
Oh and BTW what are you doing to level the playing field
Very admirable.
Me? Nothing besides taxes.
You know.....I think that if you whittle some of the thorns of of you two, you'd find you both fit in the same hole.
NM, are you rich? That's an extremely relative question, isn't it? How about you Windpower?
What exactly is rich as it pertains to this discussion?
I am but by my standards. I have enough money to last my lifetime and my wife's. We educated our kids, helped them buy their houses and help along the way.
I have land and to me, it's never enough. I like isolation......but am I RICH bt the standards we're discussing? Hell no!
It takes hard work, good planning, luck and a lifetime to get rich.
It requires stepping on everyone else in the world to get RICH {Mega Rich) and I doubt hard work plays much of a part in it.
QuoteI think it is time to fight back.
How do we do that?
I just saw an article on Yahoo Finance that said the Pentagon couldn't account for 10 Trillion Dollars. That's Trillion with a T. Amazing.
Sloppy bookkeeping is the norm in government. Hyperbole and misinformation is the norm in the media.
Let's just cut military spending in half and discontinue all medical and retirement benefits and perks for veterans... I mean it's that dept of the govt. that screwed up so it should be on them for not keeping tabs on their budget. Let the vets go after the heads of the Pentagon and defense industry.
I thought numbers don't lie and if the money is missing or being wasted... that ought to wake people up to fixing he system.
To just blow off the possiblity that there is 10 Trillion missing by saying "that's govt for ya" shows the depths of the problems we face (and more importantly what our kids face). Probably more than 10 Trillion missing and heaven knows what else they have mortgaged or squandered.
Quote from: cbc58 on August 13, 2011, 07:46:25 AM
How do we do that?
I just saw an article on Yahoo Finance that said the Pentagon couldn't account for 10 Trillion Dollars. That's Trillion with a T. Amazing.
That just doesn't pass the small taste. That's like the last 15 years of Defense budgets. Makes no sense at all
here's the link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/budget-buster-pentagon-unable-account-trillions-glain-says-160838112.html
Quote from: cbc58 on August 13, 2011, 03:22:00 PM
here's the link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/budget-buster-pentagon-unable-account-trillions-glain-says-160838112.html
Now that you post the link, it is clearer. The
Pentagon did not say it could not account for $10 trillion, rather the
author of a book [Glain] can't account for it. That is a huge difference.
"Accounting Problems: You think Enron's accounting was troubled? The Pentagon has very little accountability when it comes to its books. Since first submitting financial accounts in 1991, the Pentagon "has been unable to account for trillions of dollars,
well over almost $10 trillion by my own account," says Glain. Conspiracy theorists suggest this is CIA money being laundered through the Pentagon, a claim Glain has some sympathy for."
I have no doubt that there is waste, abuse, and fraud in the system. It is probably in the billions. I have a hard time believing $10 trillion is missing or was misappropriated. That is $500 billion a year over the time period in question. Not reasonable.
I was wondering when some billionaire nearing the end of his days might come out and admit that their economic class are not paying their fair share. Way to go Warren!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/15/us-buffett-tax-idUSTRE77E13V20110815 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/15/us-buffett-tax-idUSTRE77E13V20110815)
Quote from: dug on August 15, 2011, 08:51:12 AM
I was wondering when some billionaire nearing the end of his days might come out and admit that their economic class are not paying their fair share. Way to go Warren!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/15/us-buffett-tax-idUSTRE77E13V20110815 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/15/us-buffett-tax-idUSTRE77E13V20110815)
There is nothing...I repeat nothing...preventing these people from voluntarily paying "extra" to the government. I have no doubt that their lawyers will find a way to weasel out of paying what they owe. If Mr. Buffet feels that he isn't paying enough, he can write the check today, irregardless of what today's tax structure is.
Somehow these "tax the rich" policies have a way of creeping down. The AMT is one of these. We missed getting nicked by that by a total of $78...and we are not rich by any means.
QuoteThere is nothing...I repeat nothing...preventing these people from voluntarily paying "extra" to the government. I have no doubt that their lawyers will find a way to weasel out of paying what they owe. If Mr. Buffet feels that he isn't paying enough, he can write the check today, irregardless of what today's tax structure is
Though that might be considered admirable it is completely irrelevant to the point.
QuoteSomehow these "tax the rich" policies have a way of creeping down. The AMT is one of these. We missed getting nicked by that by a total of $78...and we are not rich by any means.
It can only creep down from where it started, which was never at the very top. People like you are getting nicked but the folks in Mr. Buffett's club are not. It's not about "taxing the rich" or redistributing wealth, but rather a fair deal for all. At least for me it is.
I'm late to this one but wanted to be sure when someone claims Warren Buffet pays less 'INCOME' taxes then his secretary they are corrected because he does not.
1. Capital Gains Tax is not Income Tax.
2. Unless you are working (don't bring in SCOTUS on this yet either) you aren't earning an income.
3. If you are earning an income/wage, it is taxed at a certain rate.
4. There are deductions that all people who file taxes can claim -- some it benefits some it does not.
When Buffet makes these claims he's comparing apples to oranges and should know better. He's comparing the capital gains tax (which i think should not exist) to an income tax (that is a wage tax) which simply isn't comparable.
Now, if you want to solve the problem, just end the whole 'income tax' thing started by the progressives.
One thing that bothers me is that people argue various points often vary strongly without actually realizing that they are playing into the entire game for one side or the other.
I might add that the system IMHO is broken but the answer isn't to demonize a certain class of people but rather to fix the problem starting with removing the whole, rather 'un fair' progressive system.
What amazes me is those on the left who claim to want 'fairness' but then want to have a decidedly 'un fair' system of taxation. Smacks of Animal Farm to me: All Animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal then others....
Or is that: All tax payers are created equal but some tax payers are more equal then others.
Simple fix: remove all deductions, change to a flat tax.
That would at least make the system 'fair' -- but I should not I'm not even in favor of that system but rather returning to no taxes on wages at all and back to taxes on 'income' (SCOTUS found that Income was not 'wages' but rather that which a business earns or an investment earns)....of course few like this because they claim it will only be handed down to them by the businesses...to which I answer: and it isn't now?
Quote from: Native_NM on August 13, 2011, 03:29:04 PM
I have a hard time believing $10 trillion is missing or was misappropriated. That is $500 billion a year over the time period in question. Not reasonable.
I just want to point out that you and I agree about something on a thread about economics. Wonders will never cease.
QuoteSimple fix: remove all deductions, change to a flat tax.
Sounds simple but what exactly do you call a deduction? If it cost me $10 to make $20 do I pay tax on $20 or $30?
Quote from: ScottA on August 15, 2011, 10:22:57 PM
Sounds simple but what exactly do you call a deduction? If it cost me $10 to make $20 do I pay tax on $20 or $30?
I was referring to individual income taxes (again, something I oppose personally). So, for example, you can deduct child care, work related expenses, mortgages, etc etc etc....just cut out all of it, make a flat tax and be done with it.
Of course because everyone wants their tax breaks it would never happen d*
The problem as I see it is first and foremost the claim that 'the rich do not pay their fair share' to which I often reply: correct, they pay your fair share too.
After all, one cannot claim that someone else does not pay their fair share when the one making the claim pays ZERO in to begin with. 'Fairness' as defined by those who make this claim is often not what you might find in a Websters.
QuoteI was referring to individual income taxes (again, something I oppose personally). So, for example, you can deduct child care, work related expenses, mortgages, etc etc etc....just cut out all of it, make a flat tax and be done with it.
That's a fine idea but consider this. Think of an individual as a business. They get a job(sell their services) and get paid much the same way a business sells it's services. So by that logic it stands to reason that anything that person has to spend to do that job is a business expense. Your gas bill to get to and from work is an example of this, another example would be uniforms or special clothes. But IMO this should also include other things. For example, If you had to buy a take out dinner because you had to work late shouldn't part of that be a deduction? How bout if you had to hire someone to mow your lawn because you had to work 80 hours this week? See my point?
That's the kind of thinking that has caused the tax code to evolve into the overly complicated overly long monster that it is today.
So are you of the opinion it should be OK for a business to deduct expenses but not an individual?
As I see it, there are at least two mistakes being made by posters to this thread:
1. Trying to analyze tax code provisions in accordance with the usual rules of logic.
Laws or statutes enacted by the government, at any level, federal, state or local are NOT meant to be viewed as a logical construction. They are, instead, arbitrary decisions based only on the balancing of the interests of various constituent groups (often derided as "special interests').
2. Trying to apply the term "fair" to a tax policy debate.
The entire "fairness" debate is an empty rhetorical game played by politicians and others. Commonly known as BS. The term is never defined because tax rates cannot be so defined. Everybody, therefore, gets to toss "fair or fairness" around without fear of being asked to define what "fair" means.(see #1 above)
My advice: Stop the madness! Quit whining from any viewpoint, right or left, about the "unfairness" of tax laws. They are not enacted because they are "fair"--they are enacted to seize private funds for use by the governments and are the result of a struggle by those who will be giving up the funds to shift as much the burden as possible from them. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it. I know the term is one of those we all learned to throw around very soon after we started talking but, we need to finish growing up---it does not sound good coming from anyone older than 16.
In part it depends on the definition of expense. And a person is not necessarily a business.
An individual person does not get to deduct or expense the cost of gas to get to work, for example. To me that makes complete sense. An individual can choose to live within walking distance, use a subway or bus for a dollar or two or drive 50 miles in a 15 MPG SUV. It's personal choice and there's no reason an individual should have a tax break on that sort of thing.
A business, and the self employed person, needs to spend gas money to get to the job site in many cases. Deducting or expensing that cost also makes complete sense to me.
What it comes down to is that the tax code is too complicated; both personal and corporate.
(http://rense.com/1.imagesH/obamatoto.jpg)
:)
Good one!, Windpower
RW
Quote from: MountainDon on August 16, 2011, 07:36:17 PM
What it comes down to is that the tax code is too complicated; both personal and corporate.
This is a result of political "gerrymandering" from both sides. Tweak one little section here to appease one group of constituents. This causes unintended problems in another section. Tweak that one. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam. We have a spaghetti tax code that most CPA's can't unwind.
I'd advocate a 1040-EZ type system that covered anyone making less than $200k or so. Might need to be a little more, maybe a little less. Simplify the code. End all the silliness. Tie the system to the SSA, and address the illegal immigration issue at the same time.