Hillary Clinton says rich not paying their fair share

[FredK]

In a discussion about Obama's national security plan at the Brookings Institution, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday that the rich are not paying enough taxes in the United States

"The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [the U.S. is], whether it is individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are," she said, according to David Sanger at the New York Times. (Clinton issued the caveat that she was not speaking for the Obama administration.) You can watch her remarks here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/201005...s/ynews_pl2311

Ok remember this is Hillary talking.

[Dave Grubb]

This will certainly send my friend Joe into orbit--but in principle I agree.

While our problems are as much (or more so) on our out of control spending which can't continue to be ignored--I do agree that the rate of taxation of higher income people should be increased.

However, I don't support higher business taxes, they are paid by the consumer in any event. However, the loop holes that allow companies to avoid equal taxation need to be plugged.

The argument that by taxing the "rich" is counter productive since it reduces their consumption is bogus--there comes a point where consumption peaks on it's own.

The "rich" don't pay more taxes because they make more noise--and they have friends in high places.

If someone wants to do a realistic analysis of taxation, then evaluate the economic impact
of taxes (in total) on a family of 4 making $75,000---and one making $500,000.

Is there anyone here who would rather be the family making $75,000?

To take that to the next step, why should they not share equal economic impact? Equal opportunity in all aspects isn't a bad idea.

We also share equally (at least in theory) to what this nation provides, why should we not share equally in the "felt impact" of maintaining that?

[Saggy]

From Clinton's same speech
------------------------------------
"She offered up Brazil as a counter-example. "Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere. And guess what? It's growing like crazy. The rich are getting richer, but they are pulling people out of poverty. There is a certain formula there that used to work for us until we abandoned it — to our regret, in my opinion. "
-------------------------------------
I just a bit confused by the "rich are getting richer, but they are pulling people out of poverty".
Just what IS the Brazilian tax-rate profile? How many Brazilian citizens pay no taxes and still get money back from their government when they don't? How many Brazilian non-citizens are there that pay no taxes and receive wealfare? What is Brazil's government spending as a percentage of their GDP?

Let's see------Clinton is ---- and has been for some time----a member of our Federal Gov't. which NEVER can get enough money to spend. Our Fed. Gov't has been SPENDING ITSELF INTO OBLIVIAN and will soon be in a place where the spending out is more than the taking in. How come Brazilian SPENDING is not in this same speech? How much do they spend on "entitlements"? What is their National Debt?
Taxing to little is NOT the problem. The problem is TOO MUCH SPENDING! And apparently Federal Gov't employees don't want to hear this----or to ADMIT it.

Are we in a race to beat ourselves DOWN to the level more compatible to 2nd or 3rd world countries? It surely seems so these last few years.

[Dave Grubb]

Those are all good questions Sam---why don't you find the answers and share them with the rest of us--rather than assuming what they might be.

[Saggy]

Those are all good questions Sam---why don't you find the answers and share them with the rest of us--rather than assuming what they might be.

Just playing Hillary's game----she didn't offer any numbers either----did she.
Did you take her seriously or just assume she was right?

[LawDog]

Fort those who don't think the "rich" pay enough, what percentage do you think the govt should take from them?

[Dave Grubb]

The Brazil thing wasn't important to me Sam--my comments are in absolute terms not relative to anything anyone else is doing.

[Fulltimer]

$75,000 would be a really nice increase for me but I would rather be in the $500,000 range.

I would not whine about paying the taxes on it either.

The way I see it being rich is voluntary but being poor is not.

The rich can always reduce their taxes by not having so much money.


don

[Kevin]

Top marginal tax rates, historical data:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

I don't think there is a case that can be made along the lines of what is the "right" tax rate for those that make a lot of money. We've had values as low as 7 percent and as high as 91 percent.

I do think, though, that as Warren Buffet said, that there is a class struggle going on in this nation and that his class is winning it.

[Saggy]

Top marginal tax rates, historical data:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

I don't think there is a case that can be made along the lines of what is the "right" tax rate for those that make a lot of money. We've had values as low as 7 percent and as high as 91 percent.

I do think, though, that as Warren Buffet said, that there is a class struggle going on in this nation and that his class is winning it.

I guess I, also, might agree with Mr. Buffet---People-wise, the middle class has been decreasing and I'm guessing the majority of the reduction would go down, not up. If you reduce the incomes of the middle class, the incomes of the lower class also drops. If you put higher taxes on the upper class----most of them the folks that own and operate the Job-producing companies---that increase gets pushed down to the folks that buy the products---the middle and lower classes.

How 'bout we do whatever Hillary's Brazil is doing where "the rich are getting richer and pulling the poor up with them"?

[LawDog]

$75,000 would be a really nice increase for me but I would rather be in the $500,000 range.

I would not whine about paying the taxes on it either.

The way I see it being rich is voluntary but being poor is not.

The rich can always reduce their taxes by not having so much money.


don

Easy to say when you're not rich......
If you had gone to school for 12 years, then interned and worked your way up in the medical field, or worked 14 hour days 7 days a week to build a business, and became successful to the point you made 500K, I really believe you wouldn't whine about the govt coming in and taking 300K of it.......riiiiiight!!! :whine: :whine: :whine:

[Billy_Rightwing]

Going to ask a dumb question, have any of you ever got a job from a poor person?

[TxMusky]

If you had gone to school for 12 years, then interned and worked your way up in the medical field, or worked 14 hour days 7 days a week to build a business, and became successful to the point you made 500K, I really believe you wouldn't whine about the govt coming in and taking 300K of it.......riiiiiight!!! :whine: :whine: :whine:

Naw... its so much easier to join a worthless union and demand, not ask, demand that you be paid more because you are worth it. Then whine when you find out that some third world dummy can do the same mindless job you did for pennies on the dollar. Must be terrible to finally find out how much you overrated yourself to the point where you screwed yourself out of a job.

But then again, the dummy really really appreciates it.

[Dave Grubb]

While there are those that have unquestioned selfishness for the fruits of their good fortune, there are those that regard their success as a blessing, partially earned, partially a result of good fortune. Those that understand that success is not all of their doing realize they have an obligation to those not as blessed as they have been.

Tx; as for your rather thinly veiled attack on Don---I suspect if will foster a smile for Don--and says far more about the attacker than the attacked.

[Fulltimer]

Naw... its so much easier to join a worthless union and demand, not ask, demand that you be paid more because you are worth it. Then whine when you find out that some third world dummy can do the same mindless job you did for pennies on the dollar. Must be terrible to finally find out how much you overrated yourself to the point where you screwed yourself out of a job.

But then again, the dummy really really appreciates it.

I can't complain. I sure enough did get paid a lot more than I was worth (in my estimation) and I did and continue to receive great benefits 15 years after retirement at the ripe old age of 48.

However, I would still rather get $500,000 a year and I promise I will pay the taxes without a complaint.


don