That's what am talking about. That is it.......take it to them.

watch out for class warfare ringing of the hook.

I believe that it would be a win win.

The millionaires give $50K to help generate jobs for much needed infrastructure projects, teachers, firefighters, police etc.

The people getting those jobs will spend more thus increasing demand and provide money into jobs in the Service Sector, Home Improvement etc... creating more jobs... which will create more jobs...

That increased demand will put more money into the economy and those same millionaires will get more than their money back because we all know that the money doesn't trickle down, it flows right back up to the top again.

I'm for it, Pass the bill!!!!

Let's see......95% of a million. Hmmm, might get tight, but I think I could live on that.

To all Democratic supporters: Contact your Senators. Tell them to support this piece of legislation.

And if you're near a protest, join it.

To all Republican supporters: I wouldn't dream of asking you to contact your Senators. It's not what you do. You just blindly support Republicans. And blame Democrats for anything and everything.

Sad. Really sad.

5% MORE DBO, try to keep up.

Just cause you don't have it doesn't give you the right to take it from someone else. That's called stealing.

White Collar Auto

5% MORE DBO, try to keep up.

Just cause you don't have it doesn't give you the right to take it from someone else. That's called stealing.

lol.......What the hell have you been doing all this while? Simply pay up.

Sort of on-topic, and sort-of not:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/04/pf/citi_fee/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

Starting in December, customers who hold its mid-level Citibank Account will be charged $20 a month if they fail to maintain a minimum balance of $15,000 in their combined accounts. Previously, account holders had to carry a minimum balance of $6,000.

At the same time, customers who have the bank's EZ Checking account will start being charged $15 a month if they don't carry a minimum balance of $6,000. Citi (C (C, Fortune 500)) says it is phasing out the EZ Checking package, which currently carries no monthly fee, and is instead offering customers either the Citibank Account or its Basic Banking account, which also carries a fee.

Last month, Citi said it is hiking the fee on its Basic Banking account from $8 to $10. Customers will be able to avoid paying the $10 fee by either maintaining a minimum balance of $1,500 or by making one direct deposit and one automatic online payment through their checking account each month, said Citi.

Why do banks always leverage fees against those who have the least money and probably use the services least?

Instead, why don't banks leverage the fees against high-value accounts which probably use the banks' services more often, costing the banks more money?

Or wait. That's no longer the American way, is it?

Literally rob from the poor to cater to the rich.

Now that the new American way.

Does anyone know if this is a temporary surtax? This compromise seems to be something that can be supported by many which is a good thing for America. Waiting on details.

Why does it need to be temporary? If you think about it, it's really nothing more than putting millionaires back at the Clinton era tax rates.

But I'll guarantee you that, if they sunset this like they did with Bush's tax reform bill, this time the sunset will stick.

It should be made permanent, and not revisited again, at least until we are safely out of this jam.

You give 5% too.

[Why do banks always leverage fees against those who have the least money and probably use the services least?]

For the same reason your local phone/cable/internet company gives sweet discounts to NEW customers, but the poor saps that have been a loyal customer for YEARS get the @!$%# end of the stick:

GREED

Sure, go ahead, raise taxes in a recession.

Didn't Obama say he would never raise taxes in recession? Of course he says a lot of things.

I bet those Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2012 can't wait to vote to raise taxes so the government can spend even more. Apparently they've forgotten about what a happened in the 2010 elections though - short memories I guess.

Maybe they'll even put the entire thing into a FY2012 budget. Now wouldn't that be something new?

"Just cause you don't have it doesn't give you the right to take it from someone else. That's called stealing'

That's exactly right. And yes- I stand corrected on the MORE deal- I have those laspes often, as anyone that reads regularly on here knows.

But going back to 'stealing'. Suppose you have a chance to give up the added 5 %, and are then out that 5%. Isn't that still better than when the revolution you helped foment leaves you with a hell of a lot less?

Anna Molly, do you want to know the real reason or make class warfare comments? Because a bank is allowed to lend between 5-8 times its assets and customer deposits are a form of liability. But they can arbitrage that amount they owe on the checking account against what they can charge for personal loans, credit card loans, mortgages so the more they can have on deposit the more money they make. So they want to encourage you to keep more money on deposit not discourage it via fees. You must realize that banks are reacting in an economic rational way that if it was costing them more in services and expense when more money was deposited they would charge it. Do you really think someone is sitting there saying lets figure out a way to cater to the rich when setting up bank fee calculations or do you think the bank earns more in revenue as a result of the rich person's deposits with the bank so they waive fees?

These fees were a very predictable unintended consequence to Durbin's provisions in Dodd Frank and he was told it would happen and didnt understand it. He thought he was protecting the people who have less in their account and he was told by taking away a bank's ability to charge fees based on bad behavior like overdrafting or using ATMs that werent the host banks and the like, that banks would need to charge fees for basic checking etc. He somehow thought it was a zero sum game.

AM -- Just curious if that is how they got the 75% of Republicans support that this article eludes to to agree. Yes it seems when it comes to taxes the wind changes frequently. No certainty there ever.

this time the sunset will stick.

So true..... LOL

"Sure, go ahead, raise taxes in a recession."

Yes- but do it on the most wealthy, not the middle and lower classes. See, raising the taxes of the have-nots and have-littles would hurt the economy quite a bit. Raising taxes on the have-it-alls won't do much to them at all. They'll weather the storm quite nicely.

Hell, they'll even get richer during a recession, buying up assets on the cheap and holding them until things get better.

If only three donors can raise a quarter of a trillion dollars for Karl Rove's American Crossroads Super PAC, then surely they can spare a dime to help our country in a time of need. And wouldn't it be nice if corporate campaign contributions were being spent on hiring instead?

The most recent data I can find indicates that in 2006 there were roughly 350,000 people in the U.S. that made $1,000,000 or more per year. If each of these folks contribute 50K, then annually this would equate to 17.5 Billion. In a ten year program, that's 175 Billion in contributions, against a cost of 450 Billion. Where's the rest of the money coming from? How many of those people employ tax attorneys, and tax accountants to make sure that they pay as little in taxes as is humanyly possible. Anyone want to bet on whether or not they can find a way to defer their income so that they avoid the supplemental tax? Anyone one want to take bets on how much of the 450 Billion cost of this program ultimately gets funded in the form of additional taxes on the middle class?

Sure, go ahead, raise taxes in a recession.

Says the person who advocates huge spending cuts that cause job losses, and has no problem with 99% of us paying more and more and getting less and less and having our safety net destroyed.

Here are five little known facts about the ‘haves’;

1. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth - As
Stiglitz notes, this disparity is much worse than it was in the past, as just 25 years ago the top 1 percent owned 33 percent of national wealth.

2. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National
Income

3. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds:

4. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s
Personal Debt:

5. The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than
At Any Other Time Since The 1920s:

For an excellent resource about how much income Americans at these different income levels have, see the Tax Policy Center. The top one percent of Americans have an average income of $1.5 million.

Read the entire story :

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/

Let's tax those corporate campaign contributions while we're at it.

that's 175 Billion in contributions, against a cost of 450 Billion. Where's the rest of the money coming from?

Let's worry about that after we get the first $175 billion.

What do you want to bet the rest will come from Grandma?

MRWSR:

You give 5% too.

What D-B-O said. But if it would help, I'll be happy to pony it up ... right after you do.

No Ana Molly, let's find out the answer to the question now, prior to another attack on the earnings of the middle class, if there still is one.

What on earth are you talking about? It's the RICH that are trying to destroy the middle class and keep everything for themselves. THEY'RE the ones who want the middle class to pay for the tax breaks they benefited from most during the 90's. I'm the one who wants THEM to pay.

In fact, instead of 5 percent, I'd prefer to put a 10 percent rider on people who make more than a million dollars a year. That brings us up to $350 billion. A lot closer.

And that should end all this "uncertainty" for businesses and give the rich plenty of incentive to get out there and make even more money.

$175 billion, or even $350 billion, may not be enough to fix the entire problem, but that's not a reason to do nothing instead.

Every little bit will help.

Well spoken by someone who "has no skin in the game"!! Tax someone but don't tax me!!

rickster, LA you math is based on each person making 1 million. You are not taking into account those that make multimillion dollar incomes or even more. You would have to work from an average amount not a flat 1 million. Its 5% per million income so if someone makes 5 million per year thats $250,000.00 not $50,000.00 Try a little harder next time to fudge numbers.

Rickster:

rather than promote this class warfare ....

Paranoia strikes deep. What a total crock of half-baked conservative dogma.

The "upper" class accusing the "lower" class of attacking it, just because wealth has concentrated in the upper class exponentially in the past few decades, at the expense of the lower class, and as a result, the lower class has no bread.

You lost me right there, King Louis.

But my advice? Just to be safe, hold on to your hat.

Tis,

I'm guessing that the folks making that money are ready willing and able to defer enough income so that the average (including those folks that manage to escape entirely) drops significantly. There's no reason to"fudge" numbers, there's a question there, and that is, "What's the source of the funding". If you believe that the funding from each of these folks will be greater than 50K, that's your perogative, my concern is that the average will be lower, as a result of their greater sophistication, and reliance upon tax law, and tax accountants.

AM, and those that are interested in solutions,

I'd push for a flat tax, along with a complete overhaul of the tax code. Herman Cain's idea of 9-9-9 seems like a rational concept, but I'd be willing to listen to just about anyone that would be interested in tax reform. Too many exemptions, too many special cases, too many ways for everyone to avoid tax liabilities. I do the best I can to limit my liability, I expect that pretty much everyone here does the same. If you make a million dollars a year, you are seriously monitoring your tax liability, and to expect those folks to just gratefully give another 50K without making modifications to their income (where possible) is ridiculous. As long as they are in compliance with the tax code, you can't blame them for minimizing their liability. Go for reform, and work toward a flat tax where everyone pays the same rate. Give everyone a deduction for the poverty level (if poverty is defined as 35,000 for a family of four, then everyone pays no tax on the first 35K), and then the same rate from 35K upward. Can't get much more fair than that, and it eliminates the need for the "Buffet rule".

Jobs bill funded by a 5% surtax for income over I million and more. Sweet!! It's a beginning. Alright Congress step up to the plate and do it.

If millionaires don't like the word tax, call it a fee. A job fee, a war funding fee... Just like the bank fee, gas, cable, cell phone provider fee.

Yes, tax someone else just not me! What an attitude! You think they are greedy?! It is their money and you want it because you won't work hard enough to make it on your own!

The translation of Reid's comment is-

We are proposing that 100% of millionaires fund the Dollars to Donors programs. A few got away last time.

Of course, those contributing through taxation will not be eligible for tenfold return on their "investment". . .

Themselves the breaks.

no joe

pay up. mr job creator, pay up. corporate jets owners, pay up. oil companies, pay up, wall street, pay up. It's a new dawn in america, pay back time ("PBT").

Nope. Payback time was 2009- when the Obama donors got paid back- tenfold their investments into his campaign.

MSNBC is the last hold out on reporting it- no Pulitzers for them- but the rest of the media has, and is, covering it.

Dollars for Donors. Nice catchy name- too bad the taxpayers got fleeced.

Nurse--what infrastructure did they get their millions from? Are you talking about education? funded at the local state government level. Roads, police and fire? funded at the local level. Your always free to move to whatever location you want to derive those government functions in which you contribute the most.

If it was so easy, what is stopping you? These people got rich because they had a specific talent like Derek Jeter, or your local doctor or your local business man. Yes a few inherited it but not sure what infrastructure they used to get rich that wasnt available to you. Since its the exact same federal infrastructure available to you, I assume you are going to contribute just as much as they are because it was equally available to you--no more no less.

Kirk, you are wrong again.........

"Wealth provides an important mechanism in the intergenerational transmission of inequality."^[6] Approximately one half of the wealthiest people in America inherited family fortunes.

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL CLASS IN THE U.S.

Myth #1: The U.S. is fundamentally a classless society and whatever economic differences exist are largely insignificant.

-- Today let’s begin by looking in more depth at Capital Goods and the distribution of wealth in America:

CAPITAL GOODS - Items/resources that make more money for you > e.g., stocks, bonds, real estate, rental property, etc.

Patterns of distribution re: wealth in America

** Bill Gates (of Microsoft) has more wealth than 40 percent of the U.S. population!

1) The richest 10 percent of the American population owns 73 percent of the total wealth and 90
percent of corporate stocks; The richest 1 percent owns 60 percent of the total wealth and 62 percent of corporate stocks... The poorest 20 percent has MINUS 0.4 percent of total wealth...

2) The richest 1/2 of 1 percent (.005) of Americans own about 25 percent of the entire population's net worth.

3) The top 1/3 of 1 percent (.003) of adult American wealth holders own more than 20 percent of all personal property and financial assets (business capital equipment, etc.)

4) The richest 1/20th of one percent (.0005) of adults own 20 percent of all corporate stock, nearly 70 percent of the worth of all state and local bonds, and 40 percent of all bonds and
notes.

5) The richest 1 percent of the American population holds 62 percent of all business assets, 78 percent of all bonds and trusts, and 45 percent of all nonresidential real estate. They also own
own about 61 percent of all corporate stock...

6) Between 1973 and 1993, the richest 1/2 of 1 percent of Americans went up in their average wealth by 147 percent. The next 9.5 percent went up by about 65 percent. In California, the
average income of the richest 20 percent of citizens increased from $98,020 to $127, 020 since 1979 while the average income of the poorest fifth of the state’s families feel from $12,300 to
$9030.

7) The bottom 50 percent of all American families have only 3 cents of every dollar worth of wealth in our country.

REALITY: Statistically, it is getting harder to move "upward" in our society (only 1 in 5 men can expect to surpass their father's income) and it is becomeing more difficult to even stay in the
middle-income level. The gap between the rich and poor is the widest since the gov't began collecting information in 1947. Morover, the percentage of middle-income households has been
falling steadily since 1967. Most people moving out of the middle class are going downward NOT upward.

"Wealth provides an important mechanism in the intergenerational transmission of inequality."^[6] Approximately one half of the wealthiest people in America inherited family fortunes

MkeMke--not wrong again at all. In fact not wrong yet. Nothing I said was in the least inconsistent with what you wrote although much of what you wrote--I would say fantastic--lets go reward and be happy for them. Is it wrong for Bill Gates to have transformed the world and have gotten enormously wealthy as a result. Maybe you are too young, but there used to be a time in this country when we encouraged success and rewarded good ole fashioned values like self reliance and werent jealous of someone else making a dollar. Just because we didnt earn it we didnt try and reach into someone else's pocket to level the playing field just because I didnt make it myself. Your reality is actually wrong. Go look at the recent Univeristy of Michigan study that takes into account legal and illegal immigration and other forms of income. People in the bottomr quintile over a 16 year period move up into the next two quintiles and actually are becoming rich faster than the rich on a percentage basis. The problem is that 20% of the people in the bottom quintile are stuck in generational welfare or government assistance and wont use self reliance to get out and the bottom quintile is replaced with no people considered poor via legal and illegal immigration. Of course this study was before the consequences of Obama's financial policies which make it harder for people to move up. The gap between rich and poor is becoming wider but your studies fail to take into account the following 1) government welfare or subisidy in any form. It also ignores demographics such as aging and reliance on social security 3) ignores wealth in terms of assets as it only relies on income and 4) most importantly totally ignores the impact of legal and illegal low skilled and low wage immigration. It also ignores the impact of the tax code in which income is now earned in flow through entities at the personal level rather than like Buffet and Gates via ownership in corporate assets that go up in value. It used to be all businesses were owned like Buffet and Gates and the dramatic shift to flow through since 1986 has been huge raising the personal incomes at the same time. Used to be the income was earned within the corporation and the persons personal wealth went up not their personal income.

Finally that 1/2 of the wealthiest people inherited their wealth is so misleading even you must be blushing. I dont care about the richest 400 people, we are talking about people across the spectrum. If you included people making over 250k in that study, it would be less than 10% inherited wealth and you know it. Stop using misleading statistics to make a point.

Be nice to see an attribution for your cut and paste.

Not doing somas called "plagiarism". It's supposed to be against the CoH- I guess you are one of the exempt few.

No joe,

I bet you always wondered what those little numbers behind the quotes were for....they are called

i·bi·dem

(b-dm, -bdm)

adv. Abbr. ib. or ibid.
In the same place. Used in footnotes and bibliographies to refer to the book, chapter, article, or page cited just before.

Now, just move your cursor over the number until the little pointed hand appears and click on it. You have a source. Now, if you can just get someone to read it for you, you're all set!!

Kirk,

I give you facts and sources and you give me opinions. You are wrong yet again, whether you acknowlege it or not. Self denial is a favorite Republican tool. But let's examine the crux of what you said.

The gap between rich and poor is becoming wider but your studies fail to take into account the following 1) government welfare or subisidy in any form. It also ignores demographics such as aging and reliance on social security 3) ignores wealth in terms of assets as it only relies on income and 4) most importantly totally ignores the impact of legal and illegal low skilled and low wage immigration.

1) My studies talk about income. Without government subsidies or welfare, the situation would be even worse. It has no bearing on the facts of income redistribution since Reagan.

2) Income is income whether it comes from Social Security or stock dividends. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. If 90% of the people ARE working, all but 11% have been losing ground, due to tax policies and the GOP desire to balance the budgets on the backs of the middle and lower classes, while granting the wealthy huge advantages.

3) My statistics don't ignore assets. Please re-read before you spout off.

CAPITAL GOODS - Items/resources that make more money for you > e.g., stocks, bonds, real estate, rental property, etc.

4) My information is based on income tax filings. Whether the respondents are legal or illegal immigrants doesn't matter as long as they are filing taxes. Republicans have looked the other way for years as they allowed businesses to hire illegals. Those people wouldn't have come here if they couldn't get work. Now, the GOP wants to ship them all back and not count them. You're all greedy phonies. Even more reason to have your taxes raised. Pass the bill!

MkeMke--you again proved me correct and obviously dont understand finances very well. First your supposed quote says that 50% of the wealth of the wealthiest people in america inherited it. I am sure thats taking the top 400 from Fortune magazine and I would say who cares about 400 people. I consider the working wealthy like a doctor, small business owner that should be in that list if they are going to be impacted by your wealth redistribution policies. You cant pick and choose. On the list of items do you even think about what you post?

1) I realize that your study was income and you clearly missed the point. No if income doesnt include government subsidies, it wouldnt make it worse but make it narrower. You cant eliminate the the 900 billion annually provided in some sort of welfare from the equation, its too big a number and you then ignore its impact on peoples ability to narrow that gap. The link is obvious and your use of misleading numbers is cherry picking. It has a huge bearing.

2) no the income isnt the income whether it be from social security or dividends because the amount of income people need in life changes with aging demographics and wealth. For example, follow along here, a senior with $1 million in the bank (not counted in the rich getting richer) living off of social security and lets say a 3% return on their investments will show in their tax return that they made $60,000 but when they retired two years earlier they were making $100,000. In your study, they would be shown as part of the getting poorer category. As the demogpahics of our population is aging, you cant ignore that aspect and your study does just using tax return info.

3) Yes they ignore assets because they generate income but change over time. So someone that has $1 million in the bank could have been earning 8% in 2004 and is now earning 3% but still has $1 million in the bank. That reduction in taxable income is not the poor getting poorer but will impact your study. So thanks for correcting me incorrectly

4) Yes it matter about illegal immigrants and I provided no editorial on what I would do with them. Just said that they distort the statistics because as people move from being poor into middle class or middle class into upper middle class, the statistics get skewed because this low skilled labor comes into the work force to replace the bottom quintile which makes it appear as if the poor are not getting richer which is falso. You also failed to address that your tax return data fails to take into account that the rich no longer earn their income like Buffet and Gates through increases in value of their stock holdsing but through flow through entities that inflate their income.

Sorry MkeMke come back when you know what you are talking about and how can you possibly say that we are greedy phonies? Arent you the one that is greedy or envious wanting something thats not yours, not earned by you and you dont want to use self reliance to get it. Sounds like greed to me.

Kirk,

I don't have time to educate you. I gave you sources and statistics. You give me a bunch of mumbo jumbo about what's income and what's not income. And it's all your opinion. No facts. No sources.

Debating with people that refuse to acknowlege facts is a waste of time. I pay my fair share of taxes. I don't collect government money. If you and your wealthy friends do the same, and allow us to roll back the Bush tax cuts so as not to so over-favor the wealthy, we'll all be better off. Anything less is selfishness. Take a cue....

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110422/NEWS02/704229879

WASHINGTON -- An influential business group called on Congress Thursday to stop playing politics with budget deficits and put "everything on the table," declaring that both tax increases and spending cuts are needed to restore the nation's finances.

More than 100 current and former chief executive officers signed a declaration released by the Committee for Economic Development, a nonpartisan policy-research group of business and university leaders.

MkeMke, where did you get the idea that I was wealthy? Certainly not under Obama's definition of wealth but I am educated. My parents owned and ran a Hallmark store in a very small midwestern town and my mom and sister are teachers. I have a experiential background, educational background and professional background in basic financial and economic behavior. Because you cant understand the math doesnt make it mumbo jumbo, it just means you dont understand it. I never said I didnt acknowledge facts, just that they have to be provided in the proper light. Lets take a basic fact that if you didnt know more would be useless. How about the fact that Obama voted for the Bush tax cuts so he must be for tax cuts for the wealthy. How would you respond? You would shed light on the context of that vote. You provided facts that are misleading without the appropriate context and shedding light on what facts are missing in order to make the conclusions you made. Nothing in my reply needs to provide sources or makes a difference whether its my opinion as its just basic common sense knowledge. If you quote something from tax return data and I show you how that is misleading because it doesnt show you how its missing any benefit thats not considered taxable (like the 900 billion of government welfare) or how income can go up or down unrelated to wealth--what would I cite as a source?

If your ire is the Bush tax cuts, you realize that they also applied to the middle class and took enormous number of people off the tax rolls, are you suggesting that those tax cuts be rolled back too? By the way, I wasnt for the Bush tax cuts even though they brought in a tremendous amount of revenue right after the cuts. You do realize that after the cuts, the government was bringing in substantially more revenue than it is today with those same cuts under Obama. So obviously, Obama's economic policies even without an increase in tax arent working. But if you are looking for me to say, should we have more revenue, I am for that but more importantly we need significant spending and entitlement reform. We cant have spending go up and of course the IRaq war was a mistake but that doesnt fix that spending cant go up 25% a year without impacting the standard of living for our kids and grandkids. Its just a financial reality and as the austerity programs hit europe who borrowed too much and now their kids and grandkids have to pay it back, its not a pretty sight. So I have no problem with creating more revenue but more importantly we need to tackle spending.

By the way what do you think if is responsibilty of individuals at all economic levels to pay their fair share or contribute their fair share? Where does self reliance come in in your eyes?

Kirk,

If you are not wealthy, then you are truly a misguided individual who is too stupid to even vote his own self interests.

As a member of society and part of the US government, we are the government, we agree to forego some of our self reliance, in order to provide for the common good.

Your argument is how we pay for that. I say people should pay for a system of government according to the benefits they've received from living in that system of government. You say that everyone should pay the same. Take the total budget and the current debt and divide it by 350,000,000. If that's what you want to pay for every person in your household, then you are a crazy person, and we will never be able to solve our problems.

Obama didn't get us where we are today all by himself. Your rants are disingenuous and unrealistic. In every civilized society until now, the wealthy have been asked to pay the greatest share in taxes. If they don't like it, they are the most able to leave and find somewhere else they'd like to live that is better. I suggest you, or the wealthy people you are trying to protect, exercise that option.

Leaving people to die in the streets because they don't have medical care, booing gay servicemen, and cheering the death penalty are not part of the country that I and a majority of others have come to love. In a democracy, the majority rules. 70% support higher taxes on the wealthy.

Too bad for your guys.

MkeMke, we agree in concept. I am not misguided at all. I am not sure what you mean about forgoing some of our self reliance to provide for the common good means but that applies in some small measure but certainly not whats going on today. I dont want people to pay the same and never said that. I am all for a simple fair progressive tax system that eliminates all loopholes, deductions and social engineering in the tax code. But there is nothing disengenous or unrealistic in fact its real life today that I speak. The wealthy already pay virtually all the taxes in this country and I dont understand why you think differently. Look it up on Irs.gov on the breakdown in taxes paid by income group. My guess is that you already know that. The wealthy pay a higher percentage of tax than anywhere else in the world which is pretty progressive dont you think? Not the highest individual rates but the highest percentage. Why do you think thats true? Because the poor and middle class pay very little as an overall percentage. What fair share do you think a wealthy person should pay? You never answered that question. They already pay 50% so you think a wealthy person should pay more than half of what they make based on your view of social justice? But you dont think spending as gotten out of control at all?

So what town have people been dying in the streets? You do know that the average poor person that was stated recently in government statistics has a car, air conditioning and all the modern appliances, two TVs, a dvd player, an Xbox or Wii, two pairs of 200 dollar Nikes, a residence larger than a middle class residence in Europe, access to health care (albeit not the most cost efficient) and all the food they can eat (albeit not the best dietary access). So your definition of poor certainly isnt reality in this country as when you provide 900billion of welfare it provides a decent life. By the way I never blamed this all on Obama, I just think his financial policies have made it worse not better and I thought we were talking about finances. I never said I was anti gay marriage and in fact quite the opposite. I have no problem cheering the death penalty and I would extend it to pedophiles but certainly Obama has no problem with it either as he just killed an american citizen in a drone attack without even the benefit of a trial. Clearly by all the polls you are definitely not in the majority at this point in time but who knows maybe things will get better and you will be. Certainly not at the moment. As for taxes on the wealthy, of course they are. Arent you for making someone else pay for something where you dont have to? Its easy to say yes as long as you dont tax me right? Its easy to say give me mine but dont take anything right?

At the moment nobody is my guys and in fact I want whats best for everyone. Its no different than Dick Durbin and Elizabeth Warren's stupidity on bank fees. Everyone told them what would happen when you eliminate overdraft fees and reduce the retail charge on debit cards and they said they wanted greater transparency. So what happens they do it anyway and the banks say I have to recover my cost and earn a profit margin on this business so if I cant earn this way, I will charge a transparent fee just like you told me to. Well BofA did it and look how they jump up and scream how dare they do exactly what I told them to do and have it negatively impact those who I thought I was helping. What idiots these guys are.

so much ignorance....so little time.

The wealthy already pay virtually all the taxes in this country

Not when you take into account state, local and sales taxes. IRS.gov only lists the federal income tax burdens. Poor people don't pay federal income taxes because their tax liabilities have already been reduced to zero by the amount of other taxes that they pay. Don't spout the typical Tea Party line without thinking.

What fair share do you think a wealthy person should pay? You never answered that question. They already pay 50%

Go back to IRS.gov (your own source) and you will see that the top tax rates are no where near 50%. I think everyone should pay a proportionate share until our debt is paid off and our deficit is eliminated. Depending on how quickly we want that to happen will determine the %.

Well BofA did it and look how they jump up and scream how dare they

I put my money in a bank for safekeeping. It's still my money. They lend it out and pay me a very small % of what they bring in for the privelege. Now, they want to charge me fees for using my own money too? BofA and the rest of them can rot in H3LL! I already closed my BofA account and will continue to close accounts of any other banks that conteplate such thievery. I'll use the local credit union if I have to...

You're a sap for supporting these crooks. You're a sap for supporting the already super wealthy. You got suckered in by the GOP, just like about 33% of the 40% that identify with that party.

MkeMke--oh boy, so far as we go down this path of posts--if you notice that so called ignorance seems to be fading away as I have disputed or proven you wrong each step of the way. The wall street journal just had an article that included state, local and all taxes including gas etc. Even when you include those, the wealthy by far pay all the tax burden. It is true to say that many of these types of taxes are regressive or flat but the consumer spending in absolute dollars is just so much higher by the wealthy. Even on sales taxes and property taxes which are flat. If someone is paying 2% of property value in property taxes or 6% in sales taxes, the wealthy just spend more money and their houses are worth alot more so they continue to be the contributor of almost all tax dollars at the state and local level too.

As for Irs.gov, it is true that the top tax bracket isnt 50% and I was including all taxes. But lets add them up. Once you are above 200 thousand you are paying 35% in federal tax, 7.55 percent on the first 106,000 in payroll and 2.55 on all the rest, plus depending on the state 5-10 percent of additional income for state income tax and then add 3.9% for the new Obamacare tax for these so called wealthy. I dont know about your math but a working so called wealthy person making 250 ,000 is paying 45-50 percent on each dollar he is making at that point. I agree with you that everyone should pay a proportionate share but right now everyone doesnt. The poor and middle class pay very little and certainly less than 10% including all taxes.

I am lost about your BofA rant. I have no clue how what they did was wrong. Are you saying banks shouldnt make money and be subject to market competition. You give them your money on deposit right? That means they have a liability to you. They pay you a small interest payment for that. You always have the ability to use cash for payments its a business. So prior to this fee, banks used to cover the costs for them to be able to provide you checking account services, online banking etc with fees like overdraft fees. They covered the costs of debit cards by charging retailers like Walmart a fee for the use of the card just like credit cards did. The wonderfully stupid Senator Durbin and his equally stupid cohort Warren said we cant have banks charge fees for bad behavior like overdrafts or we cant have banks making money on debit cards as those fees are hidden. The banks and experts told them that if take that away they will need to capture the costs of providing debit cards some other way or checking accounts. Guess what thats all BofA is doing is taking what used to be paid by retailers and now paid by the person actually using the debit card you. But like a good capitalist you are, you looked around and said, I can get those services some where else so I did and left BofA. They arent crooks, thats what business does. Do you think McDonalds employees are crooks because they raise the cost of a hamburger and fries by 5 cents? if you think its too expensive you go down to Wendys. You guys are so lost in this class jealously envy that you have blinders on. BofA isnt a crook and I am not a sap for thinking otherwise. I want banks to make lots of money because that means they can lend it out to small businesses and economy is working. If banks are not making tons of money, they dont lend it.

Quit labeling me someone that got suckered by that party. I dont identify with the GOP on anything but fiscal sanity. I am pro choice, pro gay marriage and hate most of their social platform positions. I am just a fiscal conservative and hate this concept that Obama and obviously you got suckered into it that somehow the collective wisdom of the few so called elites think they know better whats good for us than we do ourselves. They want everything to be a collective quasi socialist venture and want to forgo the ideals that built this country of self reliance and personal responsibility. Until people like you came along, we used to be proud of success and never jealous of someone elses business acumen. We named our universities after people like Vanderbilt can you see that happening now. Can you imagine naming a university after Gates or Buffet now--you guys hate their success and wealth.

[If it were me, I would simply move my Company's HQ to Zurich or Milan or Paris. Tax this dummies.]

Then you don't get to sell your product or service in the United States. Sell it to the Chinese, dummies...

Bye have a nice trip, no return no loss, money before country what an American.

Mickey, you do realize that the Chinese middle class is growing into a formidable group of consumers, don't you?

Joseph E. Parent,

Well, you don't own a business. Because if you did, you would investigate and find out before moving your business to "Zurich, Milan, or Paris", that they all pay more taxes than we do in the US. Because they value things like public education, mass transportation, clean environments, and decent working conditions and health care.

If you moved your business, it would more likely be to some foreign country like China or Khrghistan, where they pay people .33/day and no benefits and pollute the enviroment until people get sick, and have children working. If that's what you want, then let me pack your bags for you, and don't let the door hit you on the way out...

MRWSR - Socialism? Really?? I suppose you don't like Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance etc. It's not socialism to tax those that can afford to pay more progressively than those with less means. It's called the progressive tax system and it's been in place since the federal tax system was created. You are aware aren't you that we don't live in a purely capitalistic country. In fact there's no such thing as pure capitalism because IT DOESN'T WORK. Pure capitalism requires many more losers in the system than winners. It requires many millions of low paid workers to support a few higher income individuals. It feeds social unrest and most people in positions of political power realize that. You should study history and stop throwing the "socialism" word around unless you understand what you're talking about.

Actually, I don't like any of those things, but they came into being before I was born, and I'm stuck paying for them.

Taking money from some people and giving it to others is the very definition of socialism, cupcake. Do a little reading.

Why do you believe anybody on this planet owes you one thin dime? I don't even know you- why should I support you? Or, for that matter, you, me?

I give generously to charities I know make the best use of my donations. The government wastes half of what it takes from me. I prefer to give as little as possible to wasteful entities.

I cannot wait for the nightmare that is the Obama administration to end- and to have someone competent in the White House undoing all the damage done by this inept, corrupt, venal little man.

Those of you left in his cult will whine and moan, but you will enjoy the improvements along with the rest of us.

MRWSR, do you pay taxes? is that Socialism? then stop paying your taxes. The congress and senate have the power to tax the people, they created the tax system in this country. Obama can not change tax law only Congress and the Senate can do that. And with this it is still paid for no increase in the national debt and we get new bridges, roads, teachers, police and fire. People get jobs, can buy food, gas, clothing stop receiving unemployment benefits and you have a problem with this.

no jo, how do you think we would do without a government at all. If a government does not tax people then you do not have an army for defense, representation in world affairs, an interstate highway system, safe air travel, or dams for power, private industry did not build these things we did with tax dollars. If you really have problems with all these things the government does then find another government that works the way you want it to and see how well it functions. Try Haiti I understand they have a great government system. Find one government that does not tax and tell me what it does for its people. If you expect perfection from anything in life its no wonder you are so unhappy.

Tis and Laurie,

I do pay taxes, do not get a check back. Love supporting our military. But, taxes are not a playing card that can be tossed around and have more and more from one source. That is socialism and you both are full obama disciples with his class warfare mentality.

This is not class warfare it is tax warfare and it's being orchestrated by our legislators not the people being taxed I assure you. Yes, I advocate total tax reform. It is something I advocate for like a broken record. Lately, I've heard some in the media and some politicians say it is very difficult to do. Call me idealistic but I think it would be easy. Just take the average effective rate most pay anyhow and use that for a 3 tier progressive rate. Eliminate all the credits, loopholes etc. Clean up the whole mess. Then we can use some of the specialists and auditors in the IRS to seek out the fraud and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid and in other government programs. In the meantime this Jobs Act, yes, paid for with taxes, will at least get more people back to work and we will have upgrades to infrastructures, something that benefits everyone. Doesn't mean we should not keep pushing for TAX REFORMS from our legislators in fact keep on keeping on when it comes to that. You never know that might be actually listening to us.

Hey Larry - how's that Gubment assistance you accepted working out for ya?

Feisty you mean the loan I have to pay back from the SBA???? Its getting my house rebuilt nicely...thanks for asking...

Now back to my comment.... I suppose you feel that the government should play the role of Robin Hood....take from the rich to pay off the poor?

Feisty you mean the loan I have to pay back from the SBA????

No!

I'm talking about the $35K in FEMA money you sucked off the evil Gubment teat!

Just read the entire thread. The critique against a surtax on income of $1million plus to help fund a jobs bill which everyone want runs the gamut.

1. class warfare, socialism, you are just jealous!

2. Leave the rich alone, they might leave the country. They are rich because they are morally superior.

3. The rich will never pay. They will figure out how to sidestep this tax.Wait, lets fix the whole tax code first.

What a pathetic list of reasons not to pass the jobs bill.

but then again I only took it because something catastrophic happened to me and I needed some temporary help.

Oh POOR Larry - Larry constantly rails against the evil gubment until he needed help!

Then he's in the front of the line with his HAND OUT!

I'm impressed by your principles... NOT!

Chatty Kay, Brillant idea.!!!

Thursday it is. I am on board. Will do it before noon.

MkeMke, and what do you think your left with they are gone? Cuba? A third world country because all the talent, ambition, hardworking, self reliant, creative taxpaying citizens will be gone. Who will be left to pay the bills? I cant wait for your visionary thoughts on what a talentless, socialist collective US would look like? How are you going to pay for that 900 billion of welfare annually or social security and medicare while protecting the country from the likes of extreme islamic terrorists? I am sure you will get enough from the occupy wall street protestors to pay for gravel road in Iowa.