What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
43 Comments
- Eorster, on 01/31/2009, -1/+26This really is nothing surprising. Now if we could get the government to invest in small business in this country, instead of failed banks so the wealthy can diversify, maybe we all can have the opportunity to succeed. Small business is the engine that will allow us to rise out of this mess, not continued tax breaks to the wealthiest among us. Before someone argues that tax breaks for the wealthy creates new opportunity (jobs) for the rest of us... well keep thinking that and buy my swamp land in Florida for your next housing development, I will even include the fill. We need government to invest in existing small businesses and start ups instead of shell shocked failed banks that hoard the cash to cover their wealthiest depositors. Sadly I am not seeing that in any of this new bail out bill. Please correct me if I am wrong.
- daonlyfreez, on 01/31/2009, -1/+17But, but, but, think of all those poor ultra-rich! They'll have to give up a mansion or two, and they cannot throw as big a pool party as last year! Do you have any idea what damage that does to a reputation?!!
They have to carefully keep up the appearances, don't you understand, they are too big to fail!
/s - inactive, on 01/31/2009, -2/+18Disgusting,isn't it.
- doublefelix, on 01/31/2009, -1/+16Mission Accomplished.
- ConcernedCanuck, on 01/31/2009, -1/+15Its nice to see that Bush was good for something....
- inactive, on 01/31/2009, -0/+12He represented his constituency all right ... the wealthy.
- ciaran036, on 02/01/2009, -1/+10The policies that are in use guarantee that the gap between the rich and poor will continue to widen. Rich people should be taxed more and poor people should at least be given more opportunities to earn money themselves.
Some people support things like putting a 50% tax if you earn more than $200,000, but I think that's going a little too far. Taxes should depend on many different things - perhaps size of family, location etc.
Often, one person in a part of the country earning £40,000 will have a better standard of living than someone in another part of the country who might earn £100,000. London so so much more expensive to live in than say Belfast, for example.
The same amount of money could buy a mansion in one place but a tiny apartment elsewhere... - inactive, on 02/01/2009, -0/+8Already on front page:
http://digg.com/world_news/Richest_Americans_Incom ... - anklesnap, on 01/31/2009, -0/+7Doubled? wow
- stonecircle, on 06/11/2009, -0/+7All the investment in the world into small business won't do a thing if they don't have customers. Right now people are hunkering down and aren't spending money. Small businesses don't need tax breaks - they need customers. They need the little guy purchasing their goods and services.
- inactive, on 01/31/2009, -1/+8Bloomberg proclaims that the average rates paid by the 400 richest American's fell by a third to 17.2.That's what was lost to society? See,tax incomes are the reason we've been falling apart while Bush was President in the first place, he obtained tax rates that were flowing out the windows of society, and to not have enough mortgage money to pay the bills, I mean it's outrageous, they failed to show properity that can be shared to all Americans.just 23%
- liquisoft, on 02/01/2009, -0/+7There's nothing wrong with getting rich nor being rich. The problem lies in the greed and selfishness that so many wealthy people exhibit.
- kooredaan, on 02/01/2009, -0/+6I agree. However, part of the bailout in September was to try to get banks to lend again. Not just mortgages, but for small businesses and other individuals that want a loan to start their business or to do work on their homes, etc.
Seems like the September bailout money wasn't used for those purposes, maybe used for the purposes for paying the execs instead of opening up lending channels.
Maybe it is time to open up SBA loan programs with the new stimulus package (green business is one that should benefit), but other 'regular' businesses need help as well. - inactive, on 02/01/2009, -0/+6ONLY DOUBLE ?
- Sil369, on 02/01/2009, -1/+6Bush doesn't like poor people.
- le0pardess, on 02/01/2009, -0/+5These also the same people that own and run the corporations (we spend our money at) which lobby/run the government, which are affiliated and financed by the debacle banks that have received OUR TAX dollars to keep them there...
- daonlyfreez, on 02/01/2009, -0/+4The issue is that they pay *less* taxes than your average Joe.
Why do you think they are somehow entitled to?
Sure, ideally, there wouldn't be any taxes (or only low ones), but that's an utopia. - daonlyfreez, on 02/01/2009, -1/+5Their percentages are not higher, but significantly *lower*, because they can afford accountants, because they can shift wealth to tax havens, because they can abuse the system's loopholes.
Can the average Joe do the same?
Read up on what Warren Buffet had to say about this:
"Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article ... - JenniferInMO, on 02/01/2009, -1/+5@chilimac and daonly: either you two are very wealthy or you are buying into the "Flat Tax"/"Fair Tax" propaganda. You must really like paying more taxes.
- inactive, on 02/01/2009, -0/+4Then there's the myth that they invest in the American economy. What they invest in is fungible goods ... oil in the ground, land, minerals in the ground, precious metals. If they DO open a new factory, you had better believe it won't be in the USA.
- thejimmyo, on 02/01/2009, -0/+3I normally don't care for "Mission Accomplished" jokes, but this one made me laugh.
- fancypantscz, on 02/01/2009, -0/+3I think the effects of taxation on wealth distribution are being overstated here. For sure it has a large effect and I'm no fan of any of Bush's policies but to think taxation is the main reason for a the widening wealth gap is illogical. Taxation is only a percentage of real economic activities. I would argue that our trade deficit with china has had a much lager impact on wealth distribution in the US than any tax code.
By not recognizing their interest in buying locally made products, Americans sent boat loads of money to china that could have gone to growing the middle class here in the US. Beyond that, profitable trade with china necessitates massive economies of scale which in turn ensure wealth becomes concentrated. People in the US got tons of cheep ***** from China but a few CEOs and financiers actually profited the most from our trade. You can tweak tax codes all you like but without coming to terms with the fact that America doesn't make the ***** that Americans buy, the wealth gap must continue to widen.
I'm not advocating protectionism but simply calling for consumers to take responsibility for their roll in the economy. It is much better for us to freely choose to buy American made products when we find some with real value for our ourselves and our communities. In this way we use the marketplace to reward businesses that create real wealth here in the US. If we turn to the government to force people to buy American through trade agreements, the government will effectively engineer an economy by artificially propping up industries that spend the most on lobbyists living in Washington.
Greed and poor leadership has certainly taken its toll on the health of American society but consumers making stupid decisions has played an equally large roll in creating an unsustainable and unbalanced economy. - inactive, on 02/01/2009, -2/+5Unbridled capitalism = feudalism.
- Twinnie, on 01/31/2009, -4/+6Touchy subject this. Their income shouldn't have gone up like that but you can't just tax the hell out of rich people. Increase the tax on a normal person and they'll just bitch about it, increase the tax on a rich person and they'll just up and leave to some tax haven. They are rich after all.
- spoon088, on 02/01/2009, -0/+2Rich people are more important than poor people. They deserve it.
- ChiliMac, on 02/01/2009, -1/+3I respectfully disagree. In my opinion all Americans are equal, rich or poor, so we should all pay the exact same % tax rate. No loop holes, no deductions.
- daonlyfreez, on 02/01/2009, -0/+2@JenniferInMO: Used to be, my family is piss poor now. But I know that going to private schools in Switzerland, or having 3 housemaids does not really make you happy, at all...
An equal percentage tax for all seems the fairest to me. I would go with 30%. - thejimmyo, on 02/01/2009, -0/+2"beginning in the 90s, the government forced banks to make bad home loans to people who couldn't repay them"
Wrong. Try again.
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/pagenum/all/ - clvngodess, on 02/01/2009, -1/+3It's also about knowing how to generate business in times like these, cattletracks. Which is why many businesses fail to begin with. One does have to understand marketing and understand how values change as markets and times change. Get that, and you can get your advertising message right so that you can continue to generate business. But, your point is well taken. People aren't NOT shopping, they've changed their values. So what they were buying isn't as important as what they NOW value.
I'd venture to say that if we take a look at the market people are making the shift from blatant shameless consumption to more pragmatic and values based purchases. Which would actually line up nicely with the Small Mart Economic model (a shop local, support local business concept). The mom and pop businesses that were once gobbled up by the larger corporations may now have some new opportunities as people move away from the malls and big boxes. - daonlyfreez, on 02/01/2009, -1/+2@ChiliMac: We can agree on that one.
- ChiliMac, on 02/01/2009, -0/+1@daonlyfreezdaonlyfreez: That is because he is putting capital gains in the same category as personal income tax. We all pay the same capital gains tax. IT just happens that some people make enough money that they can invest a greater portion of it and pay those capital gains taxes.
- ChiliMac, on 02/02/2009, -0/+1I love how I was dugg down but the people who dugg me down did not refute what I said.
- daonlyfreez, on 02/01/2009, -1/+2Sure, here come the "jealous" accusations...
I come from a filthy rich family (my great-grandfather owned almost all the land, farms, companies in a 10 mile circle around our "estate", and this not in the middle of some barren lands, but in the middle of a thriving community).
Believe me, I know how the filthy rich "tick".
And "avoidance" being legal... Sure, may be correct, but is it "right", especially since most average taxpayers cannot easy "avoid" it? - meddelem, on 02/01/2009, -1/+2if only you saw it the other way around; you'd be enlightened.
money naturally gravitates to certain individuals. money is not a thing; but a concept. there are more poor people than there are rich. people influence with concepts such as this comment. the more people there are to influence things; the more things change to the tune of the majority... and since the majority is poor; their world resonates with all that they are lacking; because that is how they see the world and that is what they make of it. the majority is of the utmost importance.
.2 cents. - dreamtiger, on 02/02/2009, -0/+1Just in case you were still wondering where all the money went... In other news, a homeless man got 15 years for stealing $100.
- NoobpwnYa, on 02/01/2009, -1/+2Dugg for "The Republic of Stupidity Say:"
- falkyr11, on 02/01/2009, -1/+1Income tax evasion is illegal. Income tax AVOIDANCE is perfectly legal and smart. If you can hire a tax expert who can find the best ways to avoid paying taxes unnecessarily, good!
Please are just naturally jealous of other people who make money and whine that somehow it's all not fair. Cry me a river. - fancypantscz, on 02/01/2009, -1/+1So why are you giving money to a corporations that clearly undermine your own best interests? Is it not often possible to spend money outside that corrupt system?
- richardwb1, on 02/01/2009, -4/+4Another example of just how Obscene capitalism is.
Disgusting. People wake up... - ChiliMac, on 02/01/2009, -3/+1Rich people are not more important than poor people. But the way our tax system works right now our government has to design ways to encourage rich people to keep moving their money in our economy. It encourages investments, charitable contributions, etc. Personally I don't like the system, I'm a flat tax guy.
- ChiliMac, on 02/01/2009, -3/+1Actually they don't. Their percentages are still higher and if their incomes did double then the paid in a higher total.
- ChiliMac, on 02/01/2009, -3/+1I noticed ThinkProgress didn't mention this piece of the Bloomberg article:
"The richest 400 Americans collectively paid $18.1 billion in taxes in 2006, the highest in the 15-year period and 1.77 percent of all income taxes paid in the United States; on an inflation- adjusted basis, the dollar amount was the highest since 2000."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&am ...
So, taxes were cut but net revenues went up? Sounds good to me. - falkyr11, on 01/31/2009, -8/+2I suppose the title of the article is intended to lead people to falsely conclude that Bush did something wrong, crooked, and/or illegal to make his rich "buddies" (who are they, anyway?) richer. In truth, Bush's policies simply made it easy for businesses to succeed and make a profit. Low taxes = more money in the hands of people = more buying, saving, and investing = a strong economy.
Go ahead, guys, Digg me down!
I can hear it now, "Well if that's true why is the economy so bad?" Because, guys, beginning in the 90s, the government forced banks to make bad home loans to people who couldn't repay them. That artificially inflated home values, driving more people to buy houses as investements. Then people couldn't pay their mortgages, so they defaulted. It all snowballed from there...
Government needs to stay out of business! Government should protect consumers and guard against things like false advertising and collusion, but beyond that, stay OUT!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is