“The top 400 wealthiest people in this country earn $345 million a year, and they pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent. They do not need an extension of tax breaks.
By the way, for the United States of America, this effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, on average, is the lowest tax rate for the very rich in America that there has ever been on record. So we have already given the wealthiest people in this country the lowest effective tax rates in the history of our country, at least since they have been keeping records. That is what we have done. So the idea of giving these guys–who are doing phenomenally well, who already own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent–more tax breaks is totally absurd.” – Senator Bernie Sanders, The Speech
A 50% tax rate on income above $10 million dollars:
The first $10,000,000 has a lower tax rate. It’s only on money above $10 million.
If you are worried, that after $10 million, the person has to pay a slightly higher tax, are you worried when that person makes a billion dollars? Is tax on a billionaire, the .01% of the population, is that why you don’t want new roads, new bridges, new schools, affordable education, affordable health care? Is this why you tolerate cuts in services, cuts in education, cuts in programs you pay taxes for?
We are in a particular part of history because we have given too many tax breaks to the ultra-rich. It is time they pay their taxes, like they did in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Republicans have their nostalgia for yesteryear, why don’t they start with bringing back the tax rates from when America was “great”.
Get ready for a rant, guys.
An open letter to older people belittling younger voters this election season because we support Bernie Sanders:
One thing I hear all the time is that young people don’t really understand the “real world” and we just want “free stuff”. You know what sounds like free stuff to us? The millions of dollars in tax breaks for the rich and corporations. That’s free stuff. We are not asking for iPhones and new cars. We are asking for education and healthcare; something that many other countries already provide for their citizens. We are aware that Bernie’s plans go way further than most politicians’ in America and that they will be hard to accomplish because congress also has large influence. We know this and we want Bernie anyway because he will at least TRY to change the system, especially with the issue of campaign finance reform. You may be used to and comfortable with corruption in government, but we are not. His change won’t be quick, it won’t be easy, it won’t be magical. But it will be a step in the right direction to address the issues that other candidates don’t want to address. We want someone who will give it all they have to create change, not someone who says that real change is too hard.
To older women who support Hillary Clinton- We get it, you want a woman president. We also want a woman president. If it’s not Hillary, you may not get to have a woman president in your lifetime, and we feel for you. However, you can not claim to be champions for women and then imply that young female voters only want Bernie because “that’s where the boys are at”, to quote Gloria Steinem. You can not pretend to empower women and then be dismissive and condescending of young women who are active in the political process just because they disagree with you. Madeleine Albright recently said “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support each other”, as if a vote for Bernie Sanders is anti women. As if we should support anyone who is a woman regardless of their actions, character, or policy positions. Could we also say that you don’t support women because you’re not voting for Carly Fiorina? We will not be guilted or bullied into voting for Hillary Clinton.
Please feel free to disagree with us on policy ideas. We are happy to have a real debate. But young voters are not stupid and we are not unrealistic. We are informed, we are educated, and we vote with our hearts AND with our heads. We will continue to be on the right side of history as young people have almost always been, and we will not tolerate being treated as if our opinions and our votes don’t matter.
“ POLITICSChris Christie is About to Make Thousands of Chronically-Disabled People HomelessDylan Hock | October 15, 2015
“They are not going to be able to fend for themselves.”
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is about to put more than 3,000 disabled, terminally-ill and unemployed state residents out on the streets, and just in time for the holidays.
This is especially callous, considering Christie has shilled out more than $6 billion dollars in corporate tax breaks since taking office in 2010 – a figure that surpasses all of his predecessors. Christie maintains the tax breaks are necessary to create and keep jobs, yet the taxpayer cost per job went from $18,000 per job in 2009 to a whopping $80,000 as of 2014.”
Congressional Research Service – On Tax Breaks for the Top
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth.
The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.
People who are conservatives presumably want to conserve things. Most liberals agree that things should not be lost merely for the sake of change. We all believe that we have deeply important things that should be conserved. But what are those things?
Conservatives mostly want to conserve their wealth and privilege. Why? Because they believe wealth reflects the natural order of the world, that…
Last month, Republicans on the House Ways and Means committee approved $310 billion in tax breaks for corporations that are not paid for and add to the deficit. This month they continued their hypocritical approach to governing by approving another $304 billion in tax breaks that disproportionately favor wealthy taxpayers, also unpaid for. All of these tax breaks have been in place on a temporary…
Harper’s tax-break, it turns out, is not valid for single-parent homes, and not valid in homes where both parents are low-income earners.
“This isn’t really a tax break for most people; it’s social policy: a tax break for people who fit the right-wing ideal of an upstanding family: dad makes a lot of money and mom stays home with the kids, as any good mother should, instead of relying on daycare.
[…] The Library of Parliament research service studied the impact of a proposal like this in 2007 and found 61 per cent of the tax savings would go to families with incomes of more than $90,000.”
I have to vent for a moment. I was talking to someone online, and they seemed pretty okay with Bernie’s plans. At first, they said they didn’t agree with taxing the rich more just because they were rich. I told them, that wasn’t the plan. I explained about corporations making record profits and workers being laid off and paid lower wages. I explained Bernie is going to end corporate tax breaks and loop holes and raise the minimum wage so workers are getting paid their fair share of the profits and companies who were made in America have to invest in it, not ship jobs overseas.
They said they could agree with that. I explained how with the little data we have we can see that at least some rich people are paying less in taxes than the average American, and Bernie wants to end tax breaks and raise marginal taxes for the rich so that they are paying their fair share.
The person said they could agree with that as well, but they said they would never vote for Bernie. I asked why. And they said when you take all the money everyone has earned and redistribute evenly, no one has any motivation to work.
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this. This has absolutely nothing to do with any of Bernie’s plans, and yet I run into it time and time again. People hear the word socialist, they think communist, and that’s end of it. I can tell them their money is not going to be redistributed, I can tell them they are not going to lose their property (another common argument), I can tell them to please look up the difference between communism and socialism, but it doesn’t matter. These people are so hard stuck on labels, that even when I point out Bernie has no plans to do the things they fear, it doesn’t matter.
I just don’t know what to do with the world sometimes. People don’t seem to notice when they’ve shut their own foot in the door.
On one hand, the idea of small government sounds great. I think the average person would like to experience as much freedom from external restrictions as possible. And of course, no one enjoys being taxed. Thus, in theory small government sounds great.
However, over the course of time I have come to see that when politicians say “small government” they’re often using that as a code-word for cutting spending for the poor. It also seems true that they don’t want to take away the tax breaks which benefit the rich donors and corporations who got them elected.
serious question: why are conservatives allowed to blatantly discriminate against the working class ? voting to get rid of the ACA, restricting eligibility for SNAP, and keeping the minimum wage criminally low while giving the richest of the rich tax breaks because ??? like, we get it, you want poor people to die
“Clinton does find ways to pay for war and tax breaks for the rich. Hillary Clinton was FOR the war in Iraq, AGAINST gay marriage, FOR the Patriot Act, FOR NAFTA, and wants to put Ed Snowden in prison. THAT’S a lot to wrap one’s head around, especially when you have Bernie Sanders as an alternative. He will be the opposite of all that.” - Michael Moore
While we have a much larger country and much higher social expenditures, the amount of money we waste on War, Tax breaks for the rich and big corporations, could help fund higher education and paid leave for parents.
"This Was Done, Like So Many Things These Days, So the Rich Could Get a Big Tax Break. When Gov. Snyder took office in 2011, one of the first things he did was to get a multi-billion dollar tax break passed by the Republican legislature for the wealthy and for corporations. But with less tax revenues, that meant he had to start cutting costs. So, many things—schools, pensions, welfare, safe drinking water—were slashed. Then he invoked an executive privilege to take over cities (all of them majority black) by firing the mayors and city councils whom the local people had elected, and installing his cronies to act as “dictators” over these cities. Their mission? Cut services to save money so he could give the rich even more breaks. That’s where the idea of switching Flint to river water came from. To save $15 million! It was easy. Suspend democracy. Cut taxes for the rich. Make the poor drink toxic river water. And everybody’s happy.“
Let’s also remember Bernie proposes raising the minimum wage to a livable wage and we would save on healthcare costs because there would be no private insurance premiums or outrageous deductibles. Young people (and their parents) would also save on college tuition if Bernie got everything he wanted. A broad tax increase (all income levels will be affected) to pay for things that other countries with a successful middle class already have and a substantial tax hike on the very rich as well as eliminating corporate tax breaks is how Bernie plans to pay for all this. It honestly doesn’t sound bad to me. Taxes were high during the 1950′s and that was like a golden age.
And as far as the argument that he won’t get it passed through congress goes, Robert Reich says that isn’t so, but even if he’s wrong Bernie is going to try to pass these policies to help the working class. He’s going to try because he owes nothing to lobbies he would have to think of first. We can vote for a candidate that wants to pull the middle class up or we can vote for candidates who have to keep their promises to their wealthy interest groups before they can think of the American people. Or we can vote for Republicans that just blatantly want to give the wealthy more tax breaks because, hey, if you own the country why pay taxes?