There's one fundamental flaw in Rand Paul's speech that the three of you overlooked.

Senator Paul said:

"Using taxes to punish the rich in reality punishes everyone."

1. Taxes are not a form of punishment. They are part of a co-responsibility that all citizens share in securing a government whose constitutional function is to promote the general welfare.

(Whether our government has been so corrupted by the military-industrial complex and right wing privatization schemes that it is quickly losing its ability to perform the core function of government (promotion of the general welfare) is an altogether separate question.)

2. When Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney are taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries, it is nothing short of absurd to point to efforts to remedy that inequity as a means to "punish the rich."

3. Progressive taxation, which, during the Eisenhower administration, had a top income rate of 91%, not only takes into account the vast differences in the ability to pay taxes between those with enormous income and those who fall below the poverty level, but the vital need to avoid the nearly identical gaping wealth disparity that existed in 1929 and now again in 2013. That gaping wealth disparity not only threatens the survival of democracy but the survival of a sound economy.

I really don't see how anyone with a straight face could call for an upper tax rate of 91% and in the same comment say it's not punishment.

In a global economy where literally trillions of American dollars sit in overseas investments because of our high corporate tax rates, it's beyond me why Ernie would want to chase more dollars to overseas interests. Butbutbutbut, it WORKED in the 50's! We didn't have a global economy in the 50's. We were the only major manufacturing country in the 50's as European countries tried to rebuild after the war.

Even the brilliant liberal thinker JFK was smart enough to realize that rates that high were ridiculous.

Steve Snyder postulated @2:

In a global economy where literally trillions of American dollars sit in overseas investments because of our high corporate tax rates, it's beyond me why Ernie would want to chase more dollars to overseas interests.

Reality:

Those trillions of dollars sit overseas because U.S. billionaires enjoy the tax havens provided by those so-called "overseas investments." It's called off shore accounts, Steve. Your pal Mitt can tell you all about them.

Nice to see someone blindly accepting globalization --- the effective means by which the international investor class has divorced itself from any semblance of civic responsibility within the nation-states in which they reside.

Steve, before you return with more globalization propaganda, I'd urge you to read Jeff Faux, The Global Class War.

It is the same global economy that, courtesy of NAFTA and the other so-called "free trade" agreements permitted the outsourcing of once decent paying union jobs in search of $2/day slave wages in China, India, etc. --- though, of late, there's been some in-sourcing via prison slave labor at home.

Why am I not surprised that our resident wingnut has swallowed the billionaire-funded Kool Aid in large doses?

Thanks for attempting to make my point ernie but I'm not talking about people I'm talking about the global corporations which keep their profits overseas vice bringing it back to the US. Because there are countries which welcome the investment instead of saying "we'll take 35 cents off each dollar". How does GE spark the ire of thinkprogress.org in a piece related to the occupy movement? Because they make shit tons of money and they keep it invested overseas paying little or no taxes in America. That's the reality of the global economy spawned by whatever and all the whining about it isn't going to change it. America can make it worthwhile for those corporations to invest in America again, or we can continue to see other countries benefit and America lose out.

Oh yeah, we could raise the upper tax rate to 91% and see how many more "Mitts" off shore what they earn too. Brilliant idea....

Steve -

I think you're playing into a pretty huge (largely, Rightwing) fallacy here, in truth. This is not a case of either/or. This is not a case of "Lower my taxes or I'm taking my money, and business, elsewhere!" The U.S. is still a huge consumer market, with many protections and advantages, where corporations desperately wish to do business. They are not necessarily taxed on their liquid holdings (as your comment above would seem to suggest), but on the business they do here. How many widgets have they sold? How much profit have they made from that sale? etc.

Yes, it's true, General Electric doesn't have to sell light bulbs to U.S. consumers. They don't have to sell missile guidance systems to the U.S. military. They can choose to sell all of their products elsewhere if they like. They can choose to move their headquarters to a different country and good luck to them. But they don't want to. They want to sell and do business in and with the U.S.

Where they are getting off the hook is by pretending they aren't making any profits. By pretending that it is an offshore shell company, not G.E. proper, that is making all the money, and that U.S.-based G.E. proper didn't make enough money to pay what is already a fairly low statutory tax rate and a very low effective tax rate.

They also can, and should be, penalized for that. Right now, our tax structure offers incentives for moving off-shore. The incentive is not that there are lower tax rates elsewhere, but that companies will actually be rewarded for moving plants, etc., out of the country. Yes, there are countries with lower tax rates happy to help them store their money. That's just about all many of those countries have to offer. But in each of those cases (removing incentives for moving manufacturing off shore, penalizing companies for tax avoidance through shell companies) there are sticks and carrots that can be used to encourage business to keep their money here --- and use American labor in the bargain --- and penalize those that don't.

If a company doesn't want to sell to this market, doesn't want to enjoy the large and wealthy customer base, doesn't want to enjoy the (obscene) lack of government regulation and interference, doesn't want to enjoy all of the security and protections and diplomatic support they are given by the American government and the stability of the U.S. dollar, they are welcome to go elsewhere. Good luck with that.

The problem is not that taxes are too high. That is a (largely) RW red herring that it seems you are still falling for, hook, line & simplistic sinker. It is that penalties for using, but abusing, our system are far too low. That can, and should be changed.

James O'Keefe tries to equate what he does with:

http://www.thedailybeast...l-and-everyone-else.html

Nice job at ducking the subject, Steve.

The link I provided @3 demolished your repetition of the right wing talking point --- the claim that "trillions of American dollars sit in overseas investments because of our high corporate tax rates."

In truth, the actual tax rate for many U.S. corporations is not simply zero, but a negative 3.1 percent.

Brad's example of GE provides a perfect example.

Although $5.1 billion of the company's $14.2 billion 2010 worldwide profits came from its U.S. operations, this giant military contractor paid taxes that amounted to only 7.4% of its U.S. holdings.

What makes GE's tax dodging especially hypocritical is that, as one of the nation's principle military contractors, a large segment of its income comes from the tax dollars paid into the national treasury by middle class wage earners.

Interesting that Steven also repeated the right-wing canard that JFK thought tax rates were ridiculously high.

While Kennedy felt it appropriate to cut the top individual marginal tax rate from 91% to 70% at a time of full employment, peace and prosperity, from the Keynesian rates that were applied in response to the Great Depression and the expenses required for WW II, JFK expressed the view that U.S. corporations should pay taxes on all their earnings (both domestic and overseas) and felt we should cut subsidies to the oil and gas industries.

Neither your link nor Brads input proves anything. You link to a far left website which complains about corporate taxes paid by the largest of the multinational corporations. This further links to a story promoting the occupy movement. Where do they get their data? Are they counting foreign earned profits as if it were US earned profits? Are they disregarding tax breaks companies like GE earn for being at the forefront of green energy production? I'm sorry, a thinkprogress.org piece promoting the occupy movement and bemoaning corporations isn't a very credible source. Nor is a book written by the founder of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank for economic policy.

Attempting to make it seem that I somehow support corporations skirting the rules doesn't help you out either, just as it doesn't change the fact of what I have said: these corporations have trillions overseas and they ain't bringing it back here.

Speaking of skirting the issue; my original comment was regarding the 91% tax rate you have several times supported on this board while laughably saying that it isn't a punishment, it's a civic responsibility.....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Mr. Wingnut conflating personal marginal tax rates, which once did reach 91% on a portion of a wealthy person's income, with corporate rates? I'm not aware corporate rates have ever been near that high, though perhaps I missed something.

Unable to take on the fact that many U.S. corporations pay zero dollars in taxes, while other corporations actually get more money back from the government via subsidies than they actually pay in taxes, our resident wingnut @8 responds by attacking the messenger, to wit: "You link to a far left website," as if, via the Rush Limbaugh method, all one has to do to be rid of an inconvenient truth is to label it as coming from "the far left."

Better go back to one of your Fox "News" sites, Steve, where non sequiturs are readily accepted as profound truth by the mindless right.

They don't carry any weight in the land of the real. And, yes, LMK. You are correct. The 91% marginal tax rate during the Eisenhower administration applied only to personal incomes. It did not apply to corporations.

You're completely incapable of backing up your foolish call for the 91% upper tax rate, so you dwell and attack on non-related topics.

You post left wing propoganda as "proof" of your claims, and criticize me for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, neither of which I have quoted or referred to in any way.

It'd be nice if you were in any way capable of having an adult conversation with anyone who disagrees with the views you have but clearly that is not the case

Yes, all too often this is what Steve's argument comes down to--if he doesn't like what you say, he doesn't believe it. Since he can't factually refute the data, he smears the messenger. No intellectual rigor. Just name calling and wandering supposition.

Steve, were you around when there was the 91% tax rate? You write like you're completely ignorant of what life was like back then. The rich were not suffering. The middle class was a lot better off. The playing field was more even. It was a different, and in my view, much better way of doing things. It was common for a single wage earner to be able to support a very nice middle class lifestyle.

Also, it is now always forgotten that the Bush tax cuts, now so vigorously and self-righteously defended, were sleazed on us with a lie. The lie was the assurance that the cuts would soon expire and the tax rates return to what they'd been. You ALWAYS leave that essential mindfucking part out of your arguments.

Your recurring self-righteous indignation about the way other people argue is such horseshit.

I didn't mention the Bush tax cuts which should expire. I've never mentioned the Bush tax cuts once on this board. No self rightous indignation, it just pisses me off when i get fed lies like I just got from you. If you can't be truthful in your comment, stfu...

My apologies if I was incorrect in assuming your anti-tax increase sentiments included support for keeping the Bush tax cuts. Glad to hear you think they should expire.

That apology aside, if you think you are not writing with self-righteous indignation in comment #11, you don't know what self-righteous indignation means.

Furthermore, you completely ignore my comment at #12 and the 1st paragraph of #13.

As usual, you're full of it.

By the way, what I said was not a "lie" it was an error(if it really was). But then again, you probably don't know either the meaning of or the difference between lies and errors.

Steve, here's some more information about corporate tax dodging that you won't be able to intelligently refute. Do that stupid trick again where you just dismiss it and the authors out of hand cuz you've got nothing else. I love when you do that trick.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/17-1

Thank you for emphasizing my point David. Of those eight companies (scratch Verizon and FedEx because it doesn't say what they earned overseas in 2012) there are almost $410 billion in profit. Just from those eight and just from last year. Sitting in investments overseas. To avoid paying US taxes. Were you trying to make a point?

Not to you, Steve. To anyone unfamiliar with your machinations, capable of discernment and rational thought who might be happening by and bearing witness to your nonsense for the first time. Thanks for asking.

I'm not much of a believer of dialogue with you anymore, Steve. When I write to you it's just to encourage you to continue to reveal yourself and demonstrate again how little sense you make.