Skip to comments.Geithner: 'Privilege of Being an American' Is Why Rich Need Higher Taxes
Posted on 02/24/2012 3:06:35 PM PST by Lmo56
"Thats the kind of balance you need," said Geithner. "Why is that the case? Because if you don't try to generate more revenues through tax reform, if you don't ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American, then you have to -- the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security."
Since these $hitHeads are so Globally Minded, how about making the not so wealthy by American Standards, but damn rich by global standards pay their fair share?
And why do only the “wealthy” have to pay for the “privilege”?
I hate these people.
If people want to vote for spending taxpayer money they first MUST BE TAXPAYERS! Voting to spend someone else’s money is immoral to the core.
Does that mean that if you’re not rich, you aren’t privileged to be an American?
What a pot of crock!
Cut the fricken spending!!
No —the entire US welfare state is more or less set up on behalf of Mexicans:
Go into any welfare office —something VERY few freepers have ever done— and you will IMMEDIATELY see that this is true.
It’s a muuuuch bigger problem than you’d think, even after all your time on FR.
Cuts to middle-class Seniors? Oh, right, please. He just can’t say the truth, because the truth is a total outrage.
EVERYONE should pay an income tax - smaller percentages for smaller wages, larger percentages for larger ones.
Say - 5% up to $10K, 10% from $10K to $30K, 15% from $30K to $60K, 20% thereafter.
Ha! This from the same brain that couldn’t master Turbo Tax.
Ever wonder why these rich guilty liberals always itemize their deductions to pay as little as possible? Hypocrites.
50% is now slightly more than 0%
April 15, 2009
"Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who owed $34,000 in payroll and Social Security taxes from 2001 and 2002, and didn't pay all of it until Obama nominated him. "
seniors and military... thats the only place cuts could ever be found
of course, they NEVER mention all the six figure government PENSIONS being paid out
screw these ass hats
privilege??? then the lower 50% of tax filers paying no taxes are not Americans??
Negative, Same % for everyone. Only that is just.
The Privilege of Being an American' Is Why Rich Need Higher Taxes
B S !
Why? That sounds like Geithner right there!
How ‘bout making Timmy Geitner pay HIS fair share for being an American. Isn’t he the Tax Weazle Czar who owes the IRS $6 figures/ 20 years back or something?
Here was my post from this morning on the earlier thread:
I thought for SURE this was going to be one of those semi-news/semi-satire articles!
Hmmm. I think that the poorest of Americans are infinitely better off than the rest of the world’s poor. And the rich are, well pretty well off no matter where they live. So really, it is the poor that should be REALLY grateful that they have the privilege of being an American - so I think that they should be taxed more.
Hmmmm. And could even add an even higher tax onto poor folks that have immigrated here from other countries.
Hmmm. And folks descended from slaves. If their relatives had ended up in S. America or elsewhere they no doubt would not have survived long enough to have descendants. They should REALLY be grateful for the privilege to being an American and pay more in taxes.
Okay - my satire rant is off. How about ALL of us pay a bit less and expect a bit less from the feds?
An old thread with a 1939 booklet about FDR and the New Deal. It’s all happening again, even down to the same words and phrases that Obama uses. It is a long booklet but it is ALL relevant still today as it continues. Here is a too-long snip, but hard to chop it off as it is so full of truth. The last two paragraphs is the clincher. And so many see nothing wrong with the “rich” paying a higher percentage in taxes.
In his first inaugural address, March 4, 1933, the President said: “Values have shrunk to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay. has fallen;... the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side..... Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance.... Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed,... have admitted their failure and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money-changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.... They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers.... Yes, the money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.”
There was the pattern and it never changed. The one enemy, blameable for all human distress, for unemployment, for low wages, for the depression of agriculture, ... for want in the midst of potential plenty who was he? The money-changer in the temple. This was a Biblical symbol and one of the most hateful With what modern symbol did this old and hateful one associate? With the Wall Street banker, of course; and the Wall Street banker was the most familiar and the least attractive symbol of capitalism.
..... “We cannot go back to the old order,” said the President. And this was a very hateful counter symbol, because the old order, never really defined, did in fact associate in the popular mind with the worst debacle in the history of capitalism.....
Large profit as such becomes therefore a symbol of social injury, merely because it is large; moreover, it is asserted that large profit had long been so regarded by the government and penalized [by higher tax rates] for that reason.
Of all the counter symbols this was the one most damaging to the capitalistic system. Indeed, if it were accepted, it would be fatal, because capitalism is a profit and loss system and if profits, even very large profits, are socially wrong, there is nothing more to be said for it. But it was a false symbol, and false for these three reasons, namely: first, there is no measure of large profit; second, large profits are of many kinds and to say simply that large profits are “of course made at the expense of the neighbors” is either nonsense or propaganda, as you like; and; in the third place, the history is wrong.