TaxTheRich2012.org Save the Middle Class

Taxes on the very rich are lower than they've been in 80 years, lower than any modern country.

This is the key to our debt and spending problems! Tax cuts for the rich are bankrupting the U.S.
Vote to Tax The Rich! get the US back
-Tax cuts for the very wealthy have mortgaged this country's future.
-You pay more than they do.
-If the Rich are not taxed, it is you and your children who will pay the debt they have caused.
-Vote for tax rates on the very rich that are as high as the rich paid from 1935 to 1982, when America was strong. Those rates were 5 times current rates.

The solution to current economic problems is clear - as Nobel Prize winners Krugman and Stiglitz have pointed out. Fiscal stimulus (spending on creating jobs) is the only way out of this mess in any sort of reasonable time frame. Without it, we create more economic damage and a culture of unemployment and instability.

There is no need to increase government debt to create a stimulus. Taxes on the ultra-wealthy can simply be put back at the rates that prevailed from 1935 to 1981, when America's economy was strong. There is no evidence that higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy will slow the economy - that is a myth they "experts" to concoct. Taxes on the rich will provide much more revenue than needed to do reasonable stimulus. Stimulus will create future economic growth which is essential to paying down the debt (such as by rehiring the teachers, firefighters, janitors and police that that States and cities have laid off, and building roads, rail and bridges).

Do you think tax cuts for the rich are necessary for economic growth? The opposite is true. Look at this article from September 17, 2012 from Yahoo Finance, summarizing a Congressional study:

Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don't Spur Growth
By Robert Frank |
CNBC– Mon, Sep 17, 2012 11:00 AM EDT.

Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, according to a new report. But those cuts may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest,
according to a new report.

A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress
-- shows that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for
the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity
growth."

In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with
higher levels of growth.

The finding is likely to fuel to the already bitter political fight over taxing the rich, with
President Obama and the Democrats calling for higher taxes on the wealthy to
reduce the deficit and fund spending. Mitt Romney and the GOP advocate lower
marginal tax rates for top earners, saying they fuel investment and job
creation.

The CRS study looked at tax rates and economic growth since 1945. The top tax rate in 1945 was above 90 percent, and fell to 70 percent in the 1960s and to a low of 28 percent in
1986.

The top current rate is 35 percent. The tax rate for capital gains was 25 percent in the 1940s and
1950s, then went up to 35 percent in the 1970s, before coming down to 15   percent today - the lowest rate in more than 65  years.

Lowering these rates for the wealthy, the study found, isn't aligned with significant improvement in any of the areas it examined. Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect"
on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and
capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant," the study says.

"Top tax rates," it concludes, "do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."

The study said that lower marginal rates have a "slight positive effect" on productivity while
lower capital gains rates have a "slight negative association" with productivity. But, again, neither effect was considered statistically significant.

Do higher taxes on the rich lead to faster economic growth? Not necessarily. The paper says that
while growth accelerated with higher taxes on the rich, the relationship is "not
strong" and may be "coincidental," since broader economic factors may be responsible for that growth.

There is one part of the economy, however, that is changed by tax cuts for the rich: inequality. The
study says that the biggest change in the distribution of U.S. income has been with the top 0.1
percent of earners - not the one percent.

The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s,
1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period,
the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to
below 25 percent.

The study said that "as top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the
income distribution increases" and that "these relationships are statistically
significant."

In other words, cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic pie. But the study found that those cuts can effect "how that economic pie is sliced."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html

Someone is always going to be taxed.
Every dollar that we do not tax the rich will be taxes eventually paid by you and your children.
The deficits and debt are taxes that will come due to you and your children.
Cuts to Social Security and Medicare will be taxes to you, because you will not get the benefits you paid for.
If we don't vote for taxes on the ultra-rich, you will pay more taxes, fees and costs. You and your children will also pay more as interest on the national debt.
Look at the facts and figures in the charts below.  The tax-cut money that the rich have received in the last 30 years is locked up in their hands or being spent by them on investments in factories in China and Vietnam.  The wealth and estates of the ultra-rich needs to be taxed again, and spent again in America on educating our children and on America's infrastructure.
THE MYTH THAT TAXES ON THE SUPER-RICH WILL HURT ECONOMIC GROWTH IS JUST THAT: A MYTH. ECONOMIC GROWTH WAS FINE WHEN THE RICH WERE TAXED. NOW, WITH MUCH LOWER TAXES, GROWTH IS ANEMIC AND HAS BEEN MOSTLY NONEXISTENT FOR THE ENTIRE DECADE.

The Republicans offer to "broaden the base" by eliminating deductions. That is a crock.
Those "deductions" are used by the middle class and the lower end of the top 2%. People who have huge estates and make literally millions of dollars a year will be impacted less than you. They will continue to pay miniscule taxes.

The GOP leaders - and all "tax reformers" have thus proposed something that favors the richest of the rich - the top 1% and
top .1% and the top .0001%. The ultra-rich use up all their deductions in their first million. Only a change in RATES, or a tax on wealth itself, will apply equally to make the very richest pay more taxes.

Who pays for these Congress members and their Republican campaigns - the top .01%? The Koch brothers literally make $1
billion dollars each, in just interest and dividends, every year, from inherited wealth. They and people like them are funding the GOP. Their entire  political philosophy is that people who make $70,000 ought to pay a higher percentage tax than they do. They will use whatever issue they can find to fool people - gays, abortion, crime, terrorism - when their only true goal is greed. They just want to keep their taxes low and your taxes high. They want you to be so desperate to work in their factories that you'll take any wage, while they live lives of obscene luxury.

Wake up people! Every dollar that the Koch brothers do not pay in taxes, will be paid by you and your children.

Require your candidates to pledge this before you vote or contribute, and write this to your Congress member:
"In order to solve the debt of America, and to make investments in America's future, I will vote to tax the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans at the same rate as they were taxed during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford Administrations, when America was strong! I will not vote to cut spending until the ultra- wealthy pay the same taxes as they did in 1941-1980."

The one promise Obama made in 2008 is that he would not allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to be extended. But in 2010, he blinked. He went back on his promise, even though the Bush tax cuts would have ended on their own. He must hear this time that we've had enough of welfare-for-the-rich.  It is time to end the "Robin-Hood-in-Reverse" policies that constantly shower billion dollar tax cuts on the wealthy while the middle class is saddled with debt.

At the end of 2012, really, Obama blinked again. Rates went up only very little for the richest. The estate tax still exempts huge multi-million dollar estates from ANY federal tax, but payroll taxes on all those making under $110,000 went up by 25%.  Rates paid on multi-million dollar dividends are still only one-fourth of what they were in 1945-1964.

It is important to realize who the top rates on dividends ever really affected. It doesn't affect those who had less than $10 million in assets. When you look at the charts below, you will see that for America's best years (1941-1981), tax rates were 70% to 91% on dividend income that was over $250,000. In order to have dividends of over $250,000, someone would have to have investments in stocks of $10 million (a 2.5% average dividend is high). This would be $10 million just in stocks, in addition to whatever other homes, property and capital gains the taxpayer had. In other words, these people would still have over $10 million in stocks, plus other property, even if their dividends were taxed at 100%. And $10 million was equivalent to at least $100 million in todays dollars. Even $10 million is enough for them and their descendants to live comfortably for generations, while talented and hard-working American cannot afford to educate their kids.

Put another way, each of these people who had $10 million in wealth had the same amount of property as the entire bottom 30% of Americans.

Putting it in even simpler terms, the rich are the only people in America with enough money to finance a government. The poor don't have the money, and even the middle class can hardly pay their rent or mortgage by the end of the month without going bankrupt.

The Top Tax Rate on the Wealthiest Citizens Over the Last Century - From Wikipedia

As you see, for most of the last hundred years, tax rates on the very rich have been 70% to 90%

<------Look here - At these tax
             rates there would be no debt
             or threat to Social Security

<-----Here is what the rich pay now
supposedly

<-----And the rich really pay this rate
            on capital gains and dividends,
            -- only 15% !

THAT'S RIGHT. REALLY, THE RICH ARE PAYING EVEN LESS. THE RICHEST PAY ONLY ABOUT 15%, SINCE MOST OF THEIR INCOME IS CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDEND. THOSE RATES WERE CUT EVEN MORE

As you see here, first Bush lowered the supposed top marginal rate that the rich paid, from about 40% to less than 35%.
But THEN Bush and the Republicans cut the real highest tax rate to only 15% on the capital gains and dividends (These make up almost all the income of the top 1%, like Romney, and the Koch brothers). So the real tax rate on the richest is about 15%. And they don't pay the payroll taxes you do and sales taxes are a much smaller part of their income You pay more!

It is lack of spending on important government jobs that is causing this recession to last, not taxes

Obama is proud that he and the Republican Congress have not raised spending. (See chart at left.)

But that's exactly what is wrong. The government should be making sure that there are jobs, salaries and demand in the economy - as has been proved repeatedly since the 1930's - not pulling back in a recession.

To grow an economy, just like to grow a business or a family home, you have to borrow and invest. The money is there. It is sitting idle in the hands of the top 1% or they are spending it on foreign investments and foreign goods. It needs to be spent here, now.

The economy has been recovering but too slowly to make up for the huge job loss brought on by the excesses of Wall Street's GOP deregulated securities markets.

It is a myth that low taxes cause job creation. Taxes have been much higher in times of full employment and rising wages.

We are talking about taxing the very wealthy, the people who own America, not working people or professionals.

The very rich inherit large fortunes and live off trusts of bonds and stock dividends. From 1925 to 2002, we taxed that sort of dividend income at a higher rate than work income. Million-dollar dividends were taxed at 90% from 1941-1961, and at 70% from 1961-1981. That was when America was economically strong and people worked. That was when we educated the business leaders of today. We valued work and education, not idle heirs and their fortunes.

Those high tax rates on inherited fortunes encouraged work over inheritance and built America.

Let's take an example. The Koch brothers each inherited a fortune that is now about $29 billion. Just the dividends on that sort of fortune would be $1 billion per year to each of them, if their dividends were at 3%. From 1925 to 2003, we taxed those dividends on inherited fortunes (that were in such high amounts) at a higher percentage than we taxed wages from work. People who work for a living can be taxed a maximum of 39.6% on wages and salary. But now we only tax those dividends at 15%! That makes no sense.   The idea of taxing dividends higher than work was actually started by a Republican, Andrew Mellon, in 1925. Even if we taxed the billions of dollars of dividends that the Koch brothers receive at a 90% rate, both Koch brothers would each still have more than $29 billion dollars at the end of the year. Taxing dividends at only 15% also encourages them to take dividends out of their companies (Georgia-Pacific, OfficeMax, Koch Industries), instead of having their companies reinvest money in growth and creating American jobs.

Similarly, the Hearsts, who each have billions of dollars in money inherited from their great grandfather, would still have billions. They would still own their California ranches, which are bigger than the City of San Francisco, on our choicest stretch of coastline, even if we taxed their dividends at a high rate. By taxing the Hearsts at a lower rate than we tax people who work, we cause wealth to flow further to those who already have it. We and our children are asked to make up the deficit by taxes on us and cuts in Medicare and Social Security. We deprive people who work from ever getting ahead. The current system creates a permanent class of lords and peasants.

High taxes encouraged the wealthy to give to universities, so college cost less. High taxes encouraged the wealthy to leave their money in their firms, to build up jobs and businesses, instead of taking it out as taxable income.  High taxes on the rich cause growth and job creation.

If only the rich have assets, there will not be enough people with money to purchase the goods and services that keep the economy humming. Economists show that there is a "virtuous cycle of consumer demand":  working people must have the money to buy goods, creating more jobs making the goods and selling them, etc. Even Henry Ford said that he must pay his workers enough to buy a Ford, or his own income would dry up. The rich forgot that lesson. They take money from the U.S. economy for personal luxury. They invest it overseas.

We are turning into a third-world nation. The rich don't care, because they really don't live here. They live in the international world of the rich: villas in France, houses in enclaves for the rich, toll lanes, private schools, private airplanes and security guards. But by depriving the middle class of jobs, the rich are actually killing the goose that lays their golden egg.

And the function of the government, in simple terms, is, in fact, protection of property. Government is a "protection-racket" - the government says pay us and we'll protect you, both from external gangs and from ourselves.   The government's courts and laws protect property, punish those who steal or invade property, collect debts owed to the rich, forecloses houses, evicts tenants; the largest expenditures by every city are on police and firefighters who protect property; the army and navy and immigration laws defend property from invading hordes; the government paves the roads and builds the sewers without which the property owned by the rich would not be habitable, possible or profitable. The wealth of the richest Americans would be destroyed within months if the government and dollar were to disintegrate. The net worth of the bottom 50% of Americans would be essentially the same or improved: foreclosures, debt collection and evictions would stop, wars in which the poor are killed would stop, and items that put the poor in debt would stop being marketed to them - actually making the lives of most of the bottom 50% more pleasant than it is now.   Some sort of trade in food and necessities would continue, and society would reorganize, without the debts now owed by the bottom 80%, or the wealth controlled by the top 1%.

Thus, low taxes on the rich not only kill investment but also kill the goose that protects the rich themselves. The system that protects their property withers.  Low taxes encourage business people to take money out of productive use, as profits, to spend on luxury items or invest overseas. That tax rate is now about 15% to 20% on the income of the ultra-wealthy. That's what Romney paid on his millions of dollars in income. Millionaires until 1982 actually paid an average of over 50% of their income, after deductions. They pay less than 25% in average taxes now. The rich are thus encouraged to take their money out in dividends and send it for goods and labor overseas, killing American jobs.

People who actually work for a living pay much more! The rich do not pay payroll taxes on any income over $108,000, they don't pay Medicare taxes on dividend income. They pay less of their income in sales taxes than you, and their income tax rates are nearly the lowest in history.
If you agree and want to help get the word out: You can hit the Contribute Now buttons below.
Or to contribute using ActBlue, go to this
link: CONTRIBUTE
or this web address: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/strimling
Or go to our contribution pages at this
link: /contribute-page.html

Higher Taxes on the rich will allow us to invest in jobs. It will put it back into salaries for police, firefighters and teachers - who buy homes and groceries in America - who put it into the hands of construction workers in America - who pay your local insurance agent and real estate agent and other services - instead of into the pockets of the ultra-wealthy who spend it on foreign goods or untaxed government bonds.

Let's put people back to work, repair and improve transportation, educate our children to compete, build alternative power, preserve our open spaces. High taxes on the rich will put money back in the economy, that now sits idle in the pockets and homes of the very wealthy or which they invest overseas. We do not need tax cuts for the rich while America suffers!

Real Corporate Taxes in America Are Not High. They Are Among the Lowest in the World.

"Flat Taxes," "Expanding the Base," "Spending Cuts," "Reducing Corporate Tax Rates" and Consumption Taxes are code words for Taxing the Middle Class Instead of the Rich.

Flat taxes and "expanding the base" are just ways for expressing that the poor should pay more and the rich less. Be suspicious. Who is proposing a "flat" tax, and why?

For example, take the Herman Cain version of the flat tax. It would give an average $210,000 reduction in tax to the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, whereas the bottom 60% of taxpayers would pay an average increased tax of $2000 per year. See this link

A flat tax might work in an ideal world where America was a middle class country. However, first, any flat tax would soon be subject to the lobbyists for the ultra-wealthy. They would start getting new deductions.

More importantly, any tax system must take into account who has the wealth and assets. The top 1% have more of a proportion of the wealth of this country (34.6%) than the bottom 90% combined (26.9%). See this link

In fact, 20% or more of Americans have negative net worth, and 25% have zero or negative net worth. See this link. Taxing them more is simply impossible, without causing bankruptcies and a disastrous ripple effect among all their creditors and landlords.   In fact, the recession was caused by people at the bottom just not having any more money to spend - after mortgaging their homes.

The average income of the top 1% is over $1 million. The average income of the bottom 90% is less than $30,000. See this link. Even for those at incomes of $50,000 and $60,000, most people have difficulty paying the mortgage and expenses. They do not have the cash for another $2000 in taxes, or elimination of their mortgage deduction.
Economists know this: assets of the rich would be worthless without a solvent federal government, whereas a large number of taxpayers have no assets to begin with. For the middle class, their houses would still be good shelter without the economic system that supports the wealth of the very richest. The system of private property is most beneficial to those who have the most property. The rich should finance that system. which protects them, but they want the poor to pay for it.

The Poor Already Pay a "Flat Tax" - Payroll Taxes. The Rich Pay Small or No Payroll Taxes, Since They Do Not Apply for Income Over $110,000. Since the Rich Got Their Tax Cuts, Much More of the Tax Burden is Paid by Payroll Taxes on the Poor and Middle Class:

The poor and lower middle class do pay a "flat" tax: the pay Payroll, Self-employment and Medicare taxes. The rich do not pay these taxes on their millions of dollars in dividends. Thus, the share of the national budget paid by these "flat" taxes has increased steeply. These are taxes on the poor workers and middle class. Other taxes have gone down because of tax cuts for the rich. See this link. Next time they tell you that the "poorest 40% pay no taxes," show them this chart. We pay these taxes. The rich don't.

That is why we propose returning to taxes on the ultra-wealthy and their dividends that existed in 1940-1981, when America was strong and prosperous. The rich are simply not paying anymore for the economic and legal system that benefits them. They are the only ones who have the assets to pay for that system, but they are financing it with taxes from the poor.

CHART: History of TOP TAX BRACKETS SINCE 1917:
IMPORTANT INFORMATION - LOOK HOW TAXES NOW ARE AT HISTORICAL LOWS FOR MILLIONAIRES!

Year Highest
                   Rate                               ON Income over         What happened in history?
1917         67% on every dollar over $2,000,000 EVEN IN 1917, TAXES ON THE RICH WERE HIGHER THAN THEY ARE NOW!
1918         77% on every dollar over $1,000,000
1919         73% on every dollar over $1,000,000
1921         73% on every dollar over $1,000,000
1922        56% on every dollar over $200,000
1923        56% on every dollar over $200,000
1924        46% on every dollar over $500,000

1925-8     25% on every dollar over $100,000 LOOK WHAT WE GOT WITH REPUBLICANS- LOW TAX RATES ON THE RICH
1929         24%   on every dollar over $100,000 1925 TO 1930 - A STOCK MARKET BUBBLE AND THE GREAT DEPRESSION!
1930-1     25%   on every dollar over $100,000 DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?? IT JUST HAPPENED AGAIN.

1932-3     63% on every dollar over $1,000,000 THE NEW DEAL: TAXES ON THE ULTRA-RICH AGAIN AT A DECENT RATE
1934-5     63% on every dollar over $1,000,000 FDR JOBS PROGRAMS AND PUBLIC WORKS CREATE MODERN
1936-9     79% on every dollar over $5,000,000 AMERICAN ECONOMY - GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HOOVER DAM
1940         81% on every dollar over $5,000,000 TENNESSEE VALLEY, SCHOOLS, ROADS AND POST OFFICES. GO
1941          81% on every dollar over $5,000,000 TO YOUR LOCAL PUBLIC BUILDINGS. THEY WERE BUILT THEN!

1942-3     88% on every dollar over $200,000 AMERICA FIGHTS A WAR (WWII) AND PAYS FOR IT - UNLIKE NOW!
1944-5     94% on every dollar over $200,000 TAX RATES ON THE RICH IN THE 90% RANGE - THE ECONOMY BOOMS!
1946-7     86% on every dollar over $200,000         IT IS A MYTH THAT HIGH TAXES ON THE RICH HURT THE ECONOMY

1948-9     82% on every dollar over $400,000        AMERICA PAYS FOR THE WAR DEBT AND THE MARSHALL PLAN
1950         91%   on every dollar over $400,000 AMERICA BECOMES THE MOST POWERFUL ECONOMY IN HUMAN HISTORY
1951 91% on every dollar over $400,000 WITH TAX RATES OVER 90% ON THE RICH

1952-3   92% on every dollar over $400,000       EISENHOWER KNEW THAT PAYING AMERICA'S DEBT WAS WORTH TAXING
1954-63 91%   on every dollar over $400,000 THE RICH AT 91%. THE GOP NOW HAS LOST ALL RESPONSIBILITY

1964         77% on every dollar over $400,000 THE KENNEDY-JOHNSON TAX CUT - FROM 90% DOWN TO 77%
1965-7    70% on every dollar over $200,000
1968         75% on every dollar over $200,000
1969 77% on every dollar over $200,000       REPUBLICANS INSIST ON TAX SURCHARGE FOR VIETNAM - IN THOSE DAYS
                                                                                                                  REPUBLICANS LIKE DIRKSEN CARED MORE ABOUT  FISCAL
                                                                                                                  DISCIPLINE THAN ABOUT SUCKING UP TO THE ULTRA-WEALTHY
1970        71%   on every dollar over $200,000      TAXES STAY SUFFICIENT - EVEN DURING NIXON'S TIME
1971         70% on every dollar over $200,000
1972-9 70% on every dollar over $200,000
1980 70% on every dollar over $212,000
1981   69% on every dollar over $212,000

1982 50% on every dollar over $106,000 THE REAGAN/BUSH TAX CUT STARTS THE HUGE DEFICITS - WE STILL PAY
1983 50% on every dollar over $106,000 INTEREST ON THOSE CUTS. THIS WAS "VOODOO ECONOMICS" AS
1984 50% on every dollar over $159,000 BUSH DESCRIBED IT WHEN RUNNING AGAINST REAGAN - HE WAS RIGHT.
1985 50% on every dollar over $165,480
1986 50% on every dollar over $171,580          WITH HUGE DEFICITS, REAGAN/BUSH TURN THE U.S. INTO THE WORLD'S
1987 39% on every dollar over $90,000           BIGGEST DEBTOR NATION, FROM THE WORLD'S BIGGEST CREDITOR
1988 28% on every dollar over $29,750
1989 28% on every dollar over $30,950           BRAIN-DEAD TAX "REFORM" TAXES MIDDLE CLASS AT THE SAME RATE AS
1990 28% on every dollar over $32,450          THE RICH IN 1988. THOSE MAKING $30,000 NEVER GET THE BENEFITS!

1991   31%     on every dollar over $82,150           BUSH SR. IS FORCED TO RAISE RATES A BIT WHEN BOND MARKET REVOLTS
1992 31%     on every dollar over $86,500         THIS SMALL INCREASE PUTS A SMALL DENT IN THE DEFICIT

1993 39% on every dollar over $ 250,000    CLINTON/DEMOCRATS TRY TO REGAIN SANITY IN TAXES, TO PAY DEBT
1994 39% on every dollar over $250,000 TAX THE RICH AT ONLY 39% BUT STILL HIGHER THAN REAGAN/BUSH
1995 39% on every dollar over $256,500         ECONOMY GROWS FAST AT THESE TAX RATES!
1996 39%   on every dollar over $263,750
1997 39% on every dollar over $271,050
1998 39% on every dollar over $278,450
1999 39% on every dollar over $283,150
2000 39%    on every dollar over $288,350        AMERICA RUNS A SURPLUS - ACTUALLY PAYS OFF SOME NATIONAL DEBT
2001      39%    on every dollar over $297,350
2002 39%     on every dollar over $307,050

2003 35%   on every dollar over $311, 950 BUSH JR.'S TAX CUTS START RUNNING HUGE DEFICITS AGAIN!
2004 35%     on every dollar over $319,100 HUGE AMOUNTS OF DEFICIT SPENDING CREATES A BUBBLE IN BOTH
2005     35%     on every dollar over $326,450          HOME PRICES AND STOCK MARKET.   THE DEFICIT DOLLARS ARE
2006     35%     on every dollar over $336,550          SPENT ON CHINESE GOODS - CHINA BUYS U.S. BONDS WITH THE MONEY
2007     35%     on every dollar over $349,700
2008     35%     on every dollar over $357,700         Bush tax rates are even lower than 35% on the investments and dividends of the
2009     35% on every dollar over $357,700         rich. They pay only 15% on capital gains and dividends. Dividends of the idle rich
2010     35% on every dollar over $357,700         used to be taxed at 70% to 90%, so that those who work for a living coud pay less!

LOOK HOW NOT TAXING THE RICH CAUSES RECESSIONS! MONEY MUST BE RECIRCULATED INTO THE ECONOMY BY FAIR TAXATION, OR EVERYONE SUFFERS, EVEN THE STOCK MARKET AND INVESTMENTS OF THE RICH!

Notes on chart: This chart is from:  Joint Committee on Taxation, "Overview of Present Law and Economic Analysis Relating to Marginal Tax Rates and the President’s Individual Income Tax Rate Proposals" (JCX-6-01), March 6, 2001, and Congressional Research Service, "Statutory Individual Income Tax Rates and Other Elements of the Tax System: 1988 through 2008," (RL34498) May 21, 2008.

Did the rich really pay these tax rates? Well, of course not. But they paid more, and had to find an accepted way to reduce taxes. There were four basic strategies for avoiding taxes. These all used to help America, and now have fallen:

Giving to charity. Take a look around. When were your town's university buildings, concert hall, sanctuaries, Elk's Lodge, Shriner Hospital and other charitable structures first built? Odds are they were first built when the rich had an incentive to get a charitable deduction, because of high tax rates in 1918-1982. Lower rates since 1982 have created rich people who never give substantially to charity, like Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison.
Municipal Bonds. Interest on State and local bonds is not taxed by the federal government. Therefore, your city and state could pay much less interest than the going rate on bonds it issued, because these bonds were saving the rich in taxes, from paying 50% to 90% taxes they would pay on other income. Now, your local bonds, for such things as schools and water improvements, cannot be issued at low rates. Now cities and states have to issue bonds at higher rates - which you pay for in taxes. The rich demand a higher rate, because by buying muni bonds, they only get a deduction from the current 15% tax rate on what they earn on dividends on stock, or the 35% they earn on other investments - not a deduction from 50% to 90% tax rates of before. You lose. Your state loses. Your cities and water districts lose.
Other tax breaks for purposes that we democratically have valued: Congress and Presidents have always proposed tax breaks for purposes that help America fill a specific need. When the rich paid 70% or 90% they had a lot of incentive to make these kinds of investments which were given a tax break: research and development, for new equipment that makes labor more efficient, for building senior housing and low income housing, for enterprise zones, for new jobs. True, some of these tax breaks were unwise or obtained by lobbyists, but many resulted from campaign promises that we all voted for. Some helped the economy. Now, with tax rates so low on the rich, they have less incentive to make these investments.
Delaying income by staying invested in the economy. Everybody pays tax only when they take income out of a business as profits or sale of the business. If the money stays invested instead, in growing the business, it isn't taxed. The rich used to leave their income invested in their firms and businesses because if they took it out as salary or profits they would be taxed at 50% or even 90%. If the money is kept in the businesses, they invest in expansion instead. Then the business would grow and employ American workers, because the rich left money in. The ultimate way to avoid taxes was to pass the business on to family after death, which they also used to do. Now, with lower tax rates, the rich take the money out as income, put it in their pockets or nose, buy luxuries and invest it overseas. Calling taxes on the rich a tax on "job creators" is simply false. The money they take out at lower tax rates subtracts from jobs. Jobs would be created by higher tax rates.

We need a fundamental shift back to a system where the rich needed to make socially useful investments in order to avoid paying high taxes. All the proposals for a "flat tax," or for lowering tax rates by "broadening the tax base by eliminating loopholes" are concocted by the rich. They will still pay lobbyists to get their tax breaks. Only your tax deductions will go down. They only want to lower THEIR tax rates more by taking away YOUR tax deductions, like the mortgage interest deduction.

The American Myth: Are You Going to Be Rich?

The above chart is clear. The huge shift in American values is obvious. Americans have now bought the myth that anybody can be rich. That myth is false. The only times it has been true that we had social mobility in America is when we taxed the wealthy at higher rates.   "A new report from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) finds that social mobility between generations is dramatically lower in the U.S. than in many other developed countries." See a summary of this study at this LINK or at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html

Americans are now much less likely to move up in wealth or class than people in most other advanced countries. Other countries now have higher taxes, supporting free education (like America used to have). The other countries have imitated America's GI Bill, making education free for promising students. Meanwhile, America has defunded education and healthcare here, by giving tax breaks to the wealthy.   We are now on a path to giving a decent education and adequate healthcare only to the children of the rich, regardless of intelligence or merit.   See the article at this LINK or at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

As shown in that study, the chance that a son's wages will match his father's wages in America is now about double here as in Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain, and three times as high in Denmark, Australia and Norway. A kid can rise or fall there, but not here. The only advanced countries with the same lack of social mobility are Italy and Britain.   What the rich have been doing in America is making sure that only their kids have the resources to be educated and succeed, and taking the funds out of public education, childhood health and other programs that would level the field. Look at the link HERE. The most talented Americans, who we depend upon for our prosperity, cannot rise anymore.

The solution is obvious: America was able to finance its debt and build new schools when it collected a tax rate 70% - 90% on the investment income of the idle rich. These taxes were particularly on their dividends over $300,000.  In other words, we are talking about fortunes of hundreds of millions of dollars. Now we tax that at only 15%! The rich can now send their kids to private schools with their tax cuts, and so now they take their kids out of public school and vote against funds for public schools and universities.

But the future of American depends on educating everyone. The next geniuses who will make our economy soar, and who will invent what we need for the future, are not the children of the top 2%. There is a 98% chance that the geniuses of tomorrow will come from the 98%, if we give the 98% a decent education. If we do not, we will lose their genius and not compete. Instead, we will only be educating rich kids. The chance that a genius will come from the top 2% is about 2%. The future of America will dim. Already we are behind other countries in education. We have the finest education system for very rich, just like we have the finest healthcare for the rich. But we have put good education and healthcare out of reach of the middle class. As a country, we suffer.

Agree? Help us. Get the word out. Link this site on twitter and facebook. Contribute: /contribute-page.html

Do Low Taxes on the Wealthy Cause the Economy to Fail or to Prosper for Everyone?

The times when America has been weak and suffered economic distress has been when taxes on the wealthy were low, in 1929, 1991 and 2007 to now. Jobs have been plentiful when taxes were high. The myth that high taxes kill jobs is just that - A MYTH! The rich make useful investments, give to educational institutions, and create jobs when taxes are high! They leave their money invested in businesses and corporations to grow their business. They reinvest. When taxes are low, they take income out, waste it, or loan it to the government in T-Bills, putting us in debt. They buy U.S. bonds with the same money they used to pay in taxes, before getting their tax cuts!

Agree? Help us. Get the word out. Link this site on twitter and facebook.
Contribute:
To contribute through ActBlue,go to this link Contribute or input into your browser address
line this address: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/strimling
To contribute through Fundly,  /contribute-page.html

Taxing the Rich is the Only Way to Fix the Economy

The only way to get money intothe hands of consumers who will spend it, and into businesses that will hire the unemployed, while simultaneously reducing the U.S. national debt, is to TAX THE VERY RICH.

The rich do not spend their tax cuts like middle-class people. Middle-class and working class people put the money immediately back into the economy, because they have no money to spare. They spend it at the grocery store or in payments on bills and tuition. The money immediately generates more taxes - paid by the grocery store, shoemaker, realtor, and car dealer, who would now have customers if we put the teachers, police and firefighters back to work. The rich stash tax cuts mostly in their pockets and bank accounts where it does much less good;  or they buy foreign luxury goods from Germany or Italy;  or they buy stock in multi-national corporations; or the rich buy government bonds. Those bonds only lend back to the US government as debt the money the rich used to pay in taxes. That bond money is sucked into a great hole of debt caused by tax cuts for the rich, in the first place. Tax cuts to the wealthy thus are taken out of the productive economy of America. You hear about the national debt? Much of it is actually owed to America's own richest 2%. The rest of us pay.

It is necessary to Tax the Rich and for the government now to DIRECTLY PAY MIDDLE AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE TO DO JOBS (like grants to States for teachers, police, firefighters, like federal workers, from FBI agents to janitors for federal buildings, like contractors to repair roads and install solar). Unemployment is causing millions of people to lose the habits and training of work, putting our country at risk. Unemployment is high because of all the state, city and school jobs that have been cut. Out-of-work construction workers could be rebuilding roads and schools. In the 1930's, we built the Golden Gate Bridge, the Bay Bridge, and Hoover Dam, but now we are cutting even teachers. When those jobs are restored, those people will start purchasing again, restoring other stores, jobs and businesses, and restoring home prices. That will spiral the economy upward, again. Cuts in spending and taxes will only cause things to keep spiraling downward. The economy will contract instead of grow. Ironically, the rich would earn a lot more money on their own investments if they paid enough taxes to put people back to work in government jobs. The economy would blossom, as it did in the 1960's and 1990's. It is their short-sighted, unpatriotic selfishness about paying taxes that is causing the economy to slide and for the value of their own investments to go down.

Thus, the huge amount of money that the rich ripped off in TAX CUTS has to be fed back into the economy. The bottom 80% of Americans now split between them only 15% of the wealth of the country. We are becoming like Mexico.

The top 20% now has 85% of the wealth of the US - an historic high. The top 1% own 35% of the country. Read the true facts and figures:
Hit this LINK to get the facts:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesame rica/power/wealth.html

Agree? Help us. Get the word out. Link this site on twitter and facebook. Contribute at the Contribute page: /contribute-page.html

To contribute through ActBlue, go to this link CONTRIBUTE or input into your browser address line: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/strimling

This is your country, your land. Save it for all of us, not just the wealthy few.

Save our beautiful State and our country. These national forests and parks were not preserved for you by the rich. Our democratically elected government has protected them. And high tax rates encourage the rich to donate parklands to the nation. Help us protect our heritage from going back into private hands.

Average wages are down or stagnant while the rich have cleaned up. But we tax them less!

How did we get here? A short history of the tax cuts for the rich.
This chart published in The Nation in 2006 showed that the wealth gap was reaching the point it had not seen since the start of the Great Depression - before the current Depression started...

The rich have been angry since FDR's New Deal in the 1930's. He was rich, and he knew how the rich had avoided taxes for most of 200 years. He stopped it.

Prior to the 1930's, President Coolidge and Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury was Andrew Mellon. Mellon was an rich banker whose income had been third highest in the nation, behind only Rockefeller and Henry Ford. Mellon ran the first stock offerings of companies like Alcoa Aluminum, making him incredibly rich.

Andrew Mellon's plan was to cut the top income tax rate from 77 to 24 percent and reduce the Federal Estate tax. Sound familiar? His plan was much like George W. Bush's and led to the same result. He was successful in doing that, from 1925-1929. Just like now, it resulted in a rush of speculation by the rich, a securities bubble, and a huge crash on Wall Street - the Great Depression.

When the Depression hit, Mellon advised President Herbert Hoover to let everyone go bankrupt: "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people." This is the same thing we hear from conservatives now. Additionally, he advocated refusing to lend to failing banks and refusing to put more cash in circulation.

This increased the depth of the Depression. Most banks were bankrupt. Most people's savings were wiped out, and nearly half the people were actually unemployed by the end of Mellon's term.

FDR reversed these policies. Banks were regulated. Social Security was created. The establishment of the SEC ended insider trading on Wall Street by which the rich had rigged the system. These were created in the 1930's.

In 1945 the GI Bill gave money to millions of returning soldiers to go to college at government expense.  No longer was college restricted to the sons of the rich.

America prospered. Taxes on the rich went up in the 1930's and 1940's, to where they had been before Mellon: to 50% rate paid on the millions they earned at work, and to 80% to 90% on the "unearned" income they had from merely sitting around investing and inheriting money. One thing the Andrew Mellon has insisted upon, however, was that tax rates would be higher for the rich heirs who just collected stock dividends - since Mellon himself worked for most of his fortune, and envied the old-rich of America who had locked up most of the landed wealth. His belief that such old money should be put back in circulation stayed in the new high tax rates on incomes that were not from work itself. Taxes for salaries and money that was made from working, was taxed at rates no higher than 50%. This system worked well. Now, in 2012, of course, dividend income of the very rich is taxed at only 15%, which is less than the middle class pays on wages! How did we get here?

The rich saw Kennedy's use of television. They saw Johnson extending the New Deal, to Medicare and Medicaid. Now, the rich would also not have a monopoly on good doctors - and they've been working to limit access to healthcare since then.  But Kennedy's use of TV also proved to the rich that they could pump money into TV ads and try to reverse the tide of taxing the rich at higher rates. Still, the Republican candidates were wooden and awkward on TV.  Most Republican politicians looked like old men, or were shifty eyed like Nixon or clueless like Ford.

The rich hit upon the perfect solution - recruiting blow-dried candidates, and running 15 second TV ads appealing to those who were prejudiced against blacks and gays, or anti-crime or strong defense groups, or anyone that would get them enough votes for tax cuts. And why not get an actual movie actor who was used to public speaking and putting on hair dye and makeup? Better yet an actor like Ronald Reagan who had been the spokesman for GE for a decade. Reagan had been paid for decades to preach for ruthless capitalism against Godless socialism. And like many actors who had suddenly become wealthy, he was against the high taxes. He had seen on his own large income as an actor taxed. Unlike most politicians then who had been on a government salary for decades, Reagan was an actually rich person himself. He resented that he had to pay higher tax rates.

Reagan pushed hard for tax cuts for the rich. These echoed the tax cuts of Andrew Mellon and produced similar results. The supposed "supply-side economic theory of a "Laffer curve" was his justification. It predicted that there would be increased federal revenue, and a decreased deficit, when the tax cuts were enacted, because growth would increase. No respectable economist agreed. But President Carter, wounded by Iranian hostage-taking and high oil prices, narrowly lost to Reagan.

Reagan's team of right-wing zealots who had supported his candidacy then took over and pushed through the first drastic tax cuts. The Atlantic Monthly magazine published the article, "The Education of David Stockman", based on lengthy interviews the Reagan's budget director David Stockman gave. Stockman was quoted as referring to Reagan's tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process during his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.

In David Stockman's and Ronald Reagan's first year in office, the gross federal national debt had just increased to $998 billion in 1981, for all of American history. By September, 1985, four and a half years into the Reagan administration the gross federal debt had doubled to $1.8 trillion. The national debt was $2.6 trillion by September 1988.  This put pressure on the government to cut aid for health and education or all other programs.

The tax cuts had several ill effect besides the huge deficits, on which we are still paying the interest. Without the interest we pay on the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts, there would be practically no deficit in our current budgets. The rich in America under Reagan had huge amounts of dollars to chase less property and goods. Therefore, a speculative bubble built in commercial real estate, because the Reagan tax cuts had given special breaks for buying income property. Other money went to buy foreign goods, increasing the trade deficit with Japan. For the first time, the US became a debtor nation, instead of a creditor. And then the property bubble burst, causing Savings & Loans to fail by 1989. That cost the taxpayers another $200 billion, bailing out Savings & Loans - like the one on which Bush's own son (brother to George W) was a Board Member.

George HW Bush (Bush I) ran for President, however, on a platform of "read my lips, no new taxes," despite the increasing debt. Wall Street bondholders reacted negatively to the hugely increasing debt in 1989. With pressure from Congress, Bush I raised taxes a couple percentage points.

The wealthy ran insurgent candidates against Bush I because of this going back on his "tax" pledge. Both Clinton and a third-party candidate Ross Perot promised to do something about the debt caused by the huge tax cuts for the rich. Clinton won and raised taxes to only 39.5% on the very rich, which was still only half as much as they'd paid in 1942-1980. The rich were furious, however, and brought continuous "scandal" allegations against Clinton - and bankrolled a Republican victory in Congress. Still Clinton's taxes were able to reduce the deficits and debt.

By now, wealthy contributors had formed "Tax Reform" groups and had gotten pledges from all Republicans never to vote for any tax increase on the wealthy. They acted through several fronts, such as the "Club for Growth" and other groups run by Grover Norquist.   Norquist and the Club for Growth promise millions in contributions to those who take the "pledge" against taxing the rich - and he required it of all Republican politicians, even at the State and local level. In fact, the Club for Growth threatens any Republicans who votes for a tax increase that they will run a candidate against them, in the Republican primaries. And they've done it. Grover Norquist just supported a Republican tax cutter against Richard Lugar, a conservative Republican himself but one who knew how to talk rationally about taxing and spending. Further, they attack any Democrat, of course, who votes for any taxes on the rich. No Republican voted for the slight increase in taxes on the rich in the Clinton budget. And the right wing ginned up scandals such as "Whitewater" against Clinton, which a Special Prosecutor found to have no merit. Finally, they funded the case of "Troopergate," Paula Jones and the lawyers who examined Clinton about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, all of which had nothing to do with governing. They put the White House in scandal and brought impeachment, hang-tying Clinton while he was trying to fight Bin-Laden.

One of the main funders of the Club for Growth and the scandal attacks on Clinton was, and is, Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife is the great-nephew of Andrew Mellon, one of the richest men of the 1920's and the Treasury secretary of Coolidge and Hoover who had advocated the huge tax cuts for the rich and "liquidating" the poor. The difference is, of course, that Scaife was born to his huge wealth. He didn't earn most of it as Andrew Mellon had (actually, Andrew Mellon's father was a banker and judge, so he didn't start with nothing, either).

Scaife has about $1.4 billion dollars. He is still one of the 400 richest men in America on the Forbes 400. Those 400 people have as many assets as the bottom 60% of Americans combined - that's right, 400 people have as much wealth as 180 million people. When we talk about the rich, we mean VERY rich, not people who work real hard.

Mellon Scaife went after Clinton for lack of "family values" and financed the Paula Jones scandal, and the Troopergate, Vince Foster and Monica Lewinsky investigations against Clinton.

However, Scaife is no moralist. He himself has gone through a notorious divorce with his second wife, with whom he started his relationship when both he and she were married to their first spouses. The divorce from his second wife has extensive allegations of adultery by Scaife, including pictures at seedy motels with former prostitutes.    See the story at this LINK: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/02/scaife200802

More importantly, Scaife is a long-term scandal himself in politics, funneling a million undeclared dollars to the Nixon re-election campaign. His funds were funneled directly to the Watergate break-in. It is unlikely that the attacks on Clinton were based on his moral aversion.   It was strictly mud aimed at lowering taxes on the rich.

In fact, the Club for Growth and the financing of Richard Mellon Scaife of candidates for Congress have been tied closely to getting the votes to cut taxes for the rich. Along with other heirs to large fortunes, such as the Koch Brothers (the 4th and 5th richest men in American, with $25 billion each, inherited from their father's oil companies), Scaife and these other men fund the Club for Growth, other conservative foundations, campaign ads, Super-Pacs. They support or create groups supporting further tax cutting, such as the supposed "Tea Party."

They financed the attacks on John Kerry, and they stacked the deck for George W. Bush to pass the irresponsible tax cuts that put us further in debt. They finance candidates to run against anyone who dares speak of taxing the rich. They elected Bush, even fixed his first election. They whipped the country into a frenzy against terrorists and gays, mostly to cut the top tax rates down further on dividends and capital gains. This was the dream of the rich: that inherited wealth is taxed at less than earned wealth. Bush and his father and mother and grandfathers, on both sides, are heirs, from the 1% (even assuming Bush understood what he was doing, which his Treasury Secretary says he did not). The Bushes are like the Mellons and Kochs.

What is obvious from these men is that they didn't work to earn wealth. Even Andrew Mellon, who earned most of his fortune himself, saw that work should be taxed less than dividends that go to rich heirs. The idea of sparing the rich from taxes does not come primarily from those who work for much of their great wealth. It comes from the heirs of truly huge fortunes. The cuts in the Estate Tax only help the very top 3%, and half of it goes to the top .1% of the wealthy. The inherited wealth of the top 1% is truly vast - more than the bottom 90% of the nation combined.

The idea of cutting taxes on the rich does not come from any real theory about growth or that high taxes will discourage the poor from becoming wealthy. As David Stockman said, such talk was just a "Trojan Horse" to get the top tax rates down for the rich. Those theories have never been proved. These men are protecting family fortunes that are huge and their place in society, which was mostly inherited. They want others to make less income so they can have servants. Their income from dividends on their great inherited wealth, is far larger than any salary.

For the same reasons, social mobility in America is now low. The chances that you or your children will join the wealthy has been cut off, by the rich taking money out of education and the economy. The chances a rich kid will become poor, or a poor kid rich, is lower than most countries, now, as shown here:

The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. We will soon be Mexico.

THE TRULY RICH ARE NOT TODAY'S LEADERS -
THE RICH ARE MOSTLY HEIRS AND DESCENDANTS TO GREAT FORTUNES.
THE AMERICAN MYTH, THAT YOU OR YOUR KIDS, TOO, WILL BECOME ONE OF THE TRULY RICH IS JUST THAT - A MYTH: IT WAS NEVER TRUE AND IS LESS LIKELY ALL THE TIME

Discover the wealth of the truly rich, and how the distribution of wealth in America has been altered by low tax rates. Hit this LINK to get the facts

Or you can go to http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesame rica/power/wealth.htm l

Hit this LINK to get the figures on concentration of wealth in America:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

How much money is concentrated at the very top?

The concentration of wealth is increasing in America. The top 1% took in 23.5% of all of the country’s income in 2007. In 1979 they only took in 8.9%. It is concentrating at the expense of the rest of us. Between 1979 and 2008, the top 5% of American families saw their real incomes increase 73%, according to Census data. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth (20% of us) saw a decrease in real income of 4.1%. The rest were just stagnant or saw very little increase. This is why people are borrowing more and more, falling further and further behind.

Income Vs. Wealth

Top 1% owns more than 90% of us combined. "In 2007, the latest year for which figures are available from the Federal Reserve Board, the richest 1% of U.S. households owned 33.8% of the nation’s private wealth. That’s more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent."

Just 400 of the wealthiest Americans own more assets than 60% of Americans. That's right - the way that American tax law is structured now has caused just 400 people have as many assets as 180 million people in this country!

Hit this LINK to test these statements:
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/
or
http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011020612/understanding-extreme-incomewealth-gap

Those rich families aren't using 99% of this wealth. This country allows them to make it, to keep it, to protect it and creates the economic value for their property, but they don't invest in America. They don't buy a Chevy, or groceries, or a condo, or use most of their money like you, to pay the dentist or to pay the gardner or insurance broker, or really support any of the other engines of the U.S. economy with 99% of this wealth. Instead, they are just stashing it - loaning it back to the government in Treasury debt, or owning stock that could be owned by a vast numbers of smaller taxpayers. Few of these people actually made the money by work - they are mostly heirs (even Bill Gates is heir to a banking fortune - that's where he got money for Microsoft).

The wealth of rich people and corporations has to stop being stuck in their own pockets, bank accounts and trusts, where it mostly just sits. It needs to be fed back into productive use quickly, or the economy will stay in its tailspin, eventually taking everyone down with it, even the wealthy.

As analyzed by the economists at the International Monetary Fund, such extreme inequality is causing economic growth to stop.  Contrary to the propoganda of the wealthy, countries with more equality and more progressive taxation (higher taxes on the wealthy) have much higher growth rates than when we tax the wealthy at lower rates.

Hit this LINK for the analysis of how inequality has hurt growth and economic equality aids in growth:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/berg.htm

In the past, high tax rates on the rich encouraged them to get tax deductions by keeping their money invested and giving to charity, building university buildings and institutions. It encouraged them to keep their investments in productive businesses where it was untaxed, instead of taking home income and spending it on Porsches and marble bathrooms. They didn't pay much higher taxes then, but the tax system encouraged them to put their money to good use so that it wouldn't be taxed. America valued equality. Now the tax system encourages the rich to stash money overseas, flaunt it or waste it.

Taxes from the rich should be used for putting people to work, with real jobs: teaching, firefighting, building roads, repairing bridges, installing solar, training for jobs of the future. These jobs and pay will have middle class people spending that money, not letting it be locked up in the bank accounts of the idle rich.

The middle and working class are the ones who buy houses, supporting house prices for everyone. If they have jobs, they will be shopping for cars and household items and groceries again, supporting salespeople and grocers, who will in turn support insurance agents, realtors, and other professionals, who in turn buy more houses, etc. We got to get the money circulating again. The only place to get such inactive, wasted money is in the pockets of the ultra-wealthy. That is the only way to keep the economy from spiraling downward. They have the money. In the 1940's taxes on the rich were nearly 4 times what they are today.  Taxes on the rich and taxing retained earnings in corporations (money that they don't spend to hire or invest in new plants), will put that money BACK INTO THE ECONOMY.

Intelligent kids that will drive this economy can't get an education. The lazy kids of the rich produce negative worth, and snort and drink their money, producing nothing. Meanwhile, middle class and working class kids with the energy, intelligence and merit to help America prosper cannot pay for college. This must be reversed.

We taxed the rich and paid for the GI BILL after World War II. America became the richest country on earth, with Universities and technology unmatched by any civilization. Now we are falling behind all advanced societies, since we started giving huge tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy. TAX THE RICH, AND PUT THAT MONEY INTO SCHOOLS AND TUITION FOR THOSE WITH INTELLIGENCE, DRIVE AND MERIT.

Spending that tax money on JOBS, putting people back to work, will INCREASE TAX REVENUES. New workers will pay taxes (they now pay no tax because they have no income).   The amounts they spend at the grocer and the car dealer will also be taxed on the grocer's taxes and car dealer's taxes. It will also reduce amounts the government spends on unemployment payments. It will REDUCE THE DEBT.  Spending to create jobs will recycle as tax revenue. Taxing the rich to put people back to work will increase the taxes paid by all levels of society. Leaving the rich untaxed does not increase revenues. The Laffer Curve is a laugh.

Taxing the rich will also put money back into circulation that will end up profiting the companies and properties owned by the rich.  Don't they see that cutting their taxes has pulled so much out of the economy that it is crumbling their own investments? Henry Ford long ago realized that he had to pay his workers enough to buy a Model-T Ford or he wouldn't sell any cars. Who do the rich think will buy the products of their corporations if more and more people remain unemployed? It is a necessity for the economy. Failing to have the will and political structure to tax the wealthy, and put that money into jobs, will cause the American civilization to fall, just like it did prior empires and civilizations.

A WEALTH TAX? - the only way to get at the wealth

We need to tax not only the income but the assets of the rich. 30 years of tax cuts for the rich have put huge amounts of wealth in their hands. Income tax will not touch it.  The law should guarantee that we don't have idle hands of lazy heirs and trusts subverting the American economy.

The estate tax, on all estates over $1 million, must be restored. Only 10 years ago, there was a federal estate tax on all estates over $600,000. Now couples can now pass on estates of $7 million to their heirs with NO FEDERAL TAX at all. They pass billions to their descendants in trusts. Under current law, the rich can pass on $7 million tax free to the next generation.  Yet 80% of Americans die with no estate at all, and 20 million people are totally out of work. The estate tax is almost all paid by the top 1%. Half of it is paid by the top .1%. It is not a "death tax" on you.

A wealth tax can correct some of the errors of the past 30 years by imposing a one or two year wealth tax. The rich heirs took tax cuts that bankrupted the country. They need to pay that debt.

This is not a new idea. Wealth taxes are imposed in many countries: Switzerland, France, India (1%), Netherlands (1.2%), Norway (1.1%).   Donald Trump proposed in 1999 that the national debt be paid off by a 14% tax on property and trusts worth over $14 million.

This is a hugely wealthy country. We could pay our national debt by a tax of .1%, just on properties and stock portfolios that are worth over $3 million. That would grab back just a little part of the assets from those who received unjust income tax cuts. It would put the assets back to use - paying off the debt and reviving the economy.

It would be just. According to economics, most of the value of the property of the rich is caused by government spending on services and infrastructure around the property (transport, roads, airports, levees, waste water treatment). Without that, the property of the rich would be practically valueless land in the forest. Likewise, without a stable and solvent government, investments of the rich in stocks and bonds would be worthless. Meanwhile, the bottom 80% of Americans have no such property. Without a government, their property would be worth essentially the same as it is now. The government benefits the rich - it is fair and just that they pay for it. The estate tax and a wealth tax would make those pay to get our government out of debt.

We must also fix political campaigns.

In the age of TV, those who tell us the news now have million dollar incomes. They want to protect their tax cuts. They are not the newspaper and radio reporters of the past, who used to tell the truth about taxes.  Listen to the TV and you would assume that the only way to cut America's debt is to cut spending. You never hear that taxes in America used to be much higher on the wealthy than they are now.

Politicians now also rely on contributions from the wealthy to run TV commercials. Gone are the politicians who were known locally for honesty, or known at the local union hall and county fair. Instead they are "Television" candidates and spend their money on hair transplants, lies and deceptive 15 second TV commercials.

The current Supreme Court is also bought and paid for by the wealthy. The idea that rich corporations can give unlimited amounts to campaigns is laughable.  The States charter corporations. States could take away the corporate charter of any corporation that would not limit its campaign contributions. This has got to stop! There must be public financing of all campaigns sufficient for the PEOPLE to hear the truth about taxes.

DO YOU AGREE? WHAT YOU CAN DO:

CONTRIBUTE
To contribute through ActBlue,go to this link Contribute or input into your browser address
line this address: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/strimling

To contribute through Fundly,a CONTRIBUTE PAGE button is at the top of this page and here: /contribute-page.html

CONTACT US:
taxtherich2012@ymail.com or
ms@taxtherich2012.org

DEMONSTRATE: We need people who will work in this campaign.

HELP US BUILD THIS SITE AND THIS ORGANIZATION: Let us hear from you - tell us that you came here, criticize our ideas, contribute yours.
Contact us:
taxtherich2012@ymail.com
ms@taxtherich2012.org

We need good candidates.
Even responsible Republicans once voted for high taxes on the rich to finance the deficit. They will vote that way again in the California Open Primary if they know the facts. We need people to run in all
primaries so we can vote again for the most basic platform: TAXES ON THE VERY RICH INSTEAD OF DEBTS AND THREATS to the 99%.