Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (113922)	9/26/2011 3:50:31 PM
From: chartseer	Respond to of 224748

Does anyone suppose the government has crossed Tesler's Flying Saucer with the atomic power system of kennedy,s Atomic Aeroplane? If not why not?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (113922)	9/26/2011 4:13:17 PM
From: Paul V.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

Don't cry for me. I am part of America's most privileged generation - those born in the 1930s. Save your tear for the boomers. *Kenneth,* thought you would be interested in the following letter to the editor article in relationship to what is going on today in our society. IMO, Roosevelt had the right idea. However, Bush II cut taxes rather than increased taxes as Roosevelt did. Plus he had a War (military industrial complex), the WPA and CCC (stimulus), a tax increase on the extremely wealthy opposite what Bush II and the Republican party did and has proposed. These extremist are trying to take the US back to prior to the building up the middle class prior to Roosevelt it appears. No wonder why we are having so much conflicting views today. It is the extremely rich money power brokers vs the middle class, needy and poor!!! Your Opinion: Are we advancing on tax policy? Tony Smith, Jefferson City Monday, September 26, 2011 Favorite storyDear Editor: After Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt enacted policies that cut the income of America’s wealthiest families by 50 percent. Paul Krugman tells this story in his 2004 book “The Conscience of a Liberal”. The rich called Roosevelt a “... traitor to his class”. In a campaign speech Roosevelt responded by saying the “... economic royalists ...” hated him and “... he welcomed their hatred.” Roosevelt played a strong hand and did what was necessary to secure the means to battle Nazi Germany. The automotive industry was forced into war time production that they otherwise would not have taken. In fact both Ford and GM were heavily involved in car production in Europe to the benefit of Germany. Henry Ford was such an anti-Semite that the Nazis thought of him as the major leader of the Fascist movement in America. In 1938 Ford and a VP at GM received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle which was the highest honor Nazi Germany bestowed on a foreigner. Today a revitalized President Obama proposes increasing taxes on our rich by a fraction. The richest upper two-tenths of one percent make more income in one year than a median income family makes in a lifetime. To propose that they pay a modest increase in taxes leads to shrill comments from their political employees in Congress of “class warfare”. Since Reagan the economic policies of our government at the behest of our wealthy royalty have led to the greatest economic disparity between rich and poor since the Gilded Age. The differences are on par with Rwanda. There have been real advances in the last 30 years. We have the internet and big screen TVs. Cars have improved. Efficiency in found everywhere. At the same time the middle class built after World War II is losing ground steadily. Poverty is moving up rapidly. The truly rich live in gated communities to shield their lavishness from the public for good reason. A conscious tax policy by Roosevelt during wartime lasted almost 40 years. This was the most prosperous time for the most citizens. Highly taxed wealth did not take profits but plowed the money back into businesses creating jobs and demands for goods. With much less demand from an impoverished public, business now sits on its money. If President Obama could pry some of that capital away from the super-rich it would be a good thing for America.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (113922)	9/27/2011 12:38:38 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224748

'Buffett Tax' Based On Fallacy That Rich Don't Pay Fair ShareBy RALPH R. REILAND Posted 05:23 PM ET 'Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," repeatedly proclaims President Obama, arguing for his proposed $1.5 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that." In fact, Mr. Obama's statement is anything but straightforward and not hard to argue against. Seeking to reverse his declining poll numbers, especially among his increasingly disillusioned base, Obama is attempting to give the impression that America's millionaires and billionaires are paying lower taxes than their secretaries. IRS data for 2008, however, the latest year for which the numbers are available, show that those who earned more than $1 million in adjusted gross income paid an average federal income tax rate of 23.3%. For those earning $100,000 to $200,000 in 2008, the average federal income tax rate paid was just about half as much, 12.7%. For those with adjusted gross incomes from $30,000 to $50,000 — a millionaire's secretary, for instance — the average federal income tax rate paid was 7.2%, less than a third of the rate paid by those earning $1 million and over. Obama is echoing a recent column in the New York Times by billionaire Warren Buffett in which wrote that the federal income tax rate he paid was lower than the rate paid by employees in his office. "Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett," Obama responded. "There is no justification for it. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million." Again, the Buffett analysis is less than straightforward. For those in the top income brackets, a disproportionate share of income is from dividends, capital gains and other investments — income that is taxed at 15%. IRS data show that taxpayers with more than $1 million in yearly income get only 33% of their income from wages and salaries. An honest portrayal would acknowledge that dividends and capital gains are doubled taxed, first as corporate profits at the highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world, 35%, and then again as individual income when dividends are distributed or stock is sold. The total tax rate on capital gains is "closer to 45% than 15%" stated a Wall Street Journal editorial on Sept. 20. In fact, the tax hit on capital gains is higher than the Journal states because capital gains are not indexed for inflation, producing taxes that are levied on illusory gains. The stock seller is taxed not only on real gains in purchasing power, but also on phantom gains attributable to inflation. On the overall tax burden, Obama is arguing that the rich should start paying their "fair share." He doesn't mention that the latest IRS data, for 2008, show the top 1% of U.S. income earners paying 38% of all federal income taxes, the top 10% paying 70%, and the top half of income earners paying 97% of total federal income taxes. Also unacknowledged by this White House is how President Kennedy's cut in the top marginal income tax rate produced an immediate increase in federal revenues, or how President Reagan's cut in the top marginal income tax rate was followed by a drop in the unemployment rate in the 1980s from 9.7% to 5.3 %. t Obama's prescription for revenue growth and job growth moves in exactly the opposite direction.