Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

[Bern80]

Can any lib/dem give me a good reason why the gov't should spend more than 4 trillion in about 3 years over the revenue they took in? We're about to hit 15 trillion in debt by year's end, many project the debt to rise to $25 trillion in 10 years.

News flash to the lib/dems: you can't raise taxes enough to cover it, not even close. Say we did raise taxes enough to get an extra trillion in revenue like Obama wants. What the fuck are you going to do about the other 24 fucking trillion dollars in debt? When are you going to accept the fact that we have a spending problem that our kids are going to have to pay for?

I'd concede that it may take both, but in the ratio of how much government discipline and tax increases it's going to to take far more of the former than the later. Here's an idea dem's. What if we could raise tax revenue without actually raising tax rates?

 

[Wiseacre]

Can any lib/dem give me a good reason why the gov't should spend more than 4 trillion in about 3 years over the revenue they took in? We're about to hit 15 trillion in debt by year's end, many project the debt to rise to $25 trillion in 10 years.

News flash to the lib/dems: you can't raise taxes enough to cover it, not even close. Say we did raise taxes enough to get an extra trillion in revenue like Obama wants. What the fuck are you going to do about the other 24 fucking trillion dollars in debt? When are you going to accept the fact that we have a spending problem that our kids are going to have to pay for?

I'd concede that it may take both, but in the ratio of how much government discipline and tax increases it's going to to take far more of the former than the later. Here's an idea dem's. What if we could raise tax revenue without actually raising tax rates?

The repubs on the super committee offered to raise revenue by $500 billion over 10 years, but also wanted to lower the tax rates, I wrote a thread about it. The lib/dems turned it down. All the repubs wanted was $750 billion over 10 years in spending cuts.

 

[Bern80]

Can any lib/dem give me a good reason why the gov't should spend more than 4 trillion in about 3 years over the revenue they took in? We're about to hit 15 trillion in debt by year's end, many project the debt to rise to $25 trillion in 10 years.

News flash to the lib/dems: you can't raise taxes enough to cover it, not even close. Say we did raise taxes enough to get an extra trillion in revenue like Obama wants. What the fuck are you going to do about the other 24 fucking trillion dollars in debt? When are you going to accept the fact that we have a spending problem that our kids are going to have to pay for?

I'd concede that it may take both, but in the ratio of how much government discipline and tax increases it's going to to take far more of the former than the later. Here's an idea dem's. What if we could raise tax revenue without actually raising tax rates?

The repubs on the super committee offered to raise revenue by $500 billion over 10 years, but also wanted to lower the tax rates, I wrote a thread about it. The lib/dems turned it down. All the repubs wanted was $750 billion over 10 years in spending cuts.

Unfortunately I can't really pat the Repubs on the back for trying. None of them, repubs or dems, get it yet. We aren't even close to talking about numbers that are meaningful enough to make a dent in this thing.

Here, in my humble opinion, is the most fascinating website on the internet.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

So let's do some math.

The debt is about $14.976 trillion dollars. I tried to time it and the debt is going up by about $1,730,000 a minute, that's $103,800,000 an hour, $2,491,200,000 a day, 909,288,000,000 a year. So let's look at the above proposal by the repubs. We got 50 billion per year in increases and 75 billion per year in cuts. So the net effect on our 909,288,000,000 is to reduce how much the debt is increasing by 125,000,000,000 or 13%. Think about that for a second. We're not even talking about decreasing the debt yet with numbers like that. All we're talking about is reducing how much it's increasing by. At that rate it will take 7 years just to keep the debt from going up. At that rate, in 7 seven years the debt will actually be at about 19 trillion dollars. At 125 billion a year it will take 152 YEARS to pay down the debt. It's laughable that these clowns think they're accomplishing anything. The repubs aren't making a dent and it's already too much for the dems.

 

[manifold]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

Well other than it doesn't address the real problem (government over spending) at all..........

The real problem is the deficit and the debt, which reflects both spending and taxation. I would have expected you to know that already.

 

[Bern80]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

Well other than it doesn't address the real problem (government over spending) at all..........

The real problem is the deficit and the debt, which reflects both spending and taxation. I would have expected you to know that already.

And exactly how did those come to be problems?

 

[Listening]

There is a pattern of thought in America that the rich work hard and the poor are lazy. That is the simple high level view. In reality anyone who lives in the real world knows that many of the poor work hard and many of the rich are as lazy as hell. I know lots of both types having risen up the food change and owning expensive property among the so called hard workers. But why argue, if you truly believe it is only a matter of work, then you would need to provide empirical evidence which should be easy. Take a hundred children born poor who work hard and see if they match up to a hundred wealthy children who are lazy, and I would bet a big figure, you'd find the lazy ones did better. Why? Again if you live in the real world you'd know, but why argue. I done seen it with me own eyes. As my dear father used to say too often before he abandoned ship, it takes money - he was mostly right. Paradox is, everyone knows an exception, which of course reinforces error.

Blah blah blah blah....

We beat mobility to death and who cares what people want.....

The reality is that there will always be rich people.

 

[manifold]

Well other than it doesn't address the real problem (government over spending) at all..........

The real problem is the deficit and the debt, which reflects both spending and taxation. I would have expected you to know that already.

And exactly how did those come to be problems?

When spending perpetually exceeds tax revenues of course. I would have expected you to know that too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is it that if an individual receives an income in another country-that individual still pays U.S. Federal income tax. However if an American company makes profits in other countries-they don't pay income tax on that.

Is the educational system so poor that you don't know the answer to this?

What do you think the answer is? Anybody who isn't for corporations paying an income tax for profits in other counties (or eliminating federal income taxes of citizens living in other countries), isn't truly for a "fair tax". If somebody wants everybody to pay the same amount of taxes fine-but apply it across the board.

Also in case your answer is jobs: let's take Walmart as an example (first thing that popped into my head). A Walmart store in Canada and an individual (US citizen) have to each pay Canadian income tax. The individual has to also pay a US income tax-but Walmart does not. Walmart is an American company making a profit. The store in Canada also supply no real jobs in the US.

It's only fair that companies pay taxes for things individuals pay taxes on. Especially if somebody wants to claim that they're "people" too.

Anybody who isn't for corporations paying an income tax for profits in other counties (or eliminating federal income taxes of citizens living in other countries), isn't truly for a "fair tax".

We're the only country in the world that charges companies a tax on world-wide income.

 

[Listening]

Is the educational system so poor that you don't know the answer to this?

What do you think the answer is? Anybody who isn't for corporations paying an income tax for profits in other counties (or eliminating federal income taxes of citizens living in other countries), isn't truly for a "fair tax". If somebody wants everybody to pay the same amount of taxes fine-but apply it across the board.

Also in case your answer is jobs: let's take Walmart as an example (first thing that popped into my head). A Walmart store in Canada and an individual (US citizen) have to each pay Canadian income tax. The individual has to also pay a US income tax-but Walmart does not. Walmart is an American company making a profit. The store in Canada also supply no real jobs in the US.

It's only fair that companies pay taxes for things individuals pay taxes on. Especially if somebody wants to claim that they're "people" too.

Anybody who isn't for corporations paying an income tax for profits in other counties (or eliminating federal income taxes of citizens living in other countries), isn't truly for a "fair tax".

We're the only country in the world that charges companies a tax on world-wide income.

Gotta feed the best somehow.

 

[Bern80]

The real problem is the deficit and the debt, which reflects both spending and taxation. I would have expected you to know that already.

And exactly how did those come to be problems?

When spending perpetually exceeds tax revenues of course. I would have expected you to know that too.

And that's different than saying we have a government overspendig problem how exactly? Or is it your opinion that our government actually needs more money?

 

[Oldstyle]

I understand the economic theory you espouse. However, I still respectfully disagree. The so called "Dot Com Boom" was, as we all know, a balloon full of hot air. There wasn't any real corporate earnings to support the inflated stock prices. So the only boom to tax revenues one can logically ascribe came from capital gains taxes, not income taxes. And given the fact that a return to Clinton era rates would leave the capital gains rate unchanged at 15% (currently set to go up to 20% in 2013 btw), I can't abide your argument. Increasing the highest marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39% would not be even remotely catastrophic to the economy and pretending it would is nothing more than fear mongering.

A "boom" by definition is a balloon, Manifold. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Higher housing values during the housing boom we experienced before this latest crash brought in huge amounts of additional revenues. To pretend that the Dot Com boom didn't pump huge amounts of revenue into government during the Clinton years is ridiculous. It did.

My point was that raising taxes to the levels they were at without a corresponding boom to fuel economic growth is going to have a completely different result now than it did during Clinton's time. That isn't "fear mongering" it's simple economics.

Like I said, I get the theory. In fact there was a time when I bought it hook, line and sinker as well. I've since grown to understand that there are no absolutes in macro-economic theory and I simply disagree with you about what would happen. And that's ok. But I voted for it, it won, it didn't happen. I think I'm allowed to be a little annoyed.

This isn't some debatable economic theory, Manifold...Keynesian versus Austrian school of thought...it's just a fact. Raising taxes in a recession or coming out of a recession will cause a double dip recession. When folks on the left bring up the balanced budgets of the Clinton years I always shake my head in disbelief at their naive belief that what was happening THEN is comparable to what is happening NOW and that doing the same things as then would achieve the same results. I'm sorry but NOW is nothing at all like THEN. Whoever the President is (Democrat or Republican) they will not have a Dot Com boom to fuel their recovery...they will also not have the 'Peace dividend' to help balance the budget and bring down the deficits. Trying to pretend that there "is" something out there that will cause another Dot Com boom or that you can cut the military to the extent that Bill Clinton did before the advent of 9/11 is simply deluding yourself.

As for what you voted for? If you'd examined the facts before making that vote you would have quickly ascertained that the tickling you felt going up your legs was Barack Obama blowing smoke up your skirt with campaign promises that were impossible to keep.

 

[manifold]

And exactly how did those come to be problems?

When spending perpetually exceeds tax revenues of course. I would have expected you to know that too.

And that's different than saying we have a government overspendig problem how exactly? Or is it your opinion that our government actually needs more money?

If the government continues to spend at current levels it sure needs more money.

 

[Bern80]

When spending perpetually exceeds tax revenues of course. I would have expected you to know that too.

And that's different than saying we have a government overspendig problem how exactly? Or is it your opinion that our government actually needs more money?

If the government continues to spend at current levels it sure needs more money.

You think that would fly if you ran your household that way? You gonna go to your boss and say 'hey I keep spending more than you're paying me, so I'm gonna have to have you give me more money.'? It ain't me that's cuckoo here ya idiot. You don't demand more money, YOU STOP SPENDING BEYOND YOUR MEANS. Start learning the difference between problems and symptoms. The debt is not the problem. It is the negative consequence of a problem. The problem is our government spends too much money. But if you think its that they don't have enough put your own fucking money where your mouth is and give em more of your own.

 

[healthmyths]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

FACTS on taxes paid in 2008!!!

A plumber making an average of $50,000 paid 5.6% of income in taxes!
A teacher making an average of $52,000 paid 9.2% of income in taxes!
Obama PAID on his $1.7 million income 26%!

There were 141 million returns (99.4%) reported $6.798 trillion income
898,912 returns (.6%) reported $1.4 trillion income.

The 141 million paid $688 billion in taxes or 66% of tax revenue
The 898,912 paid $342 billion in taxes or 33.24% of revenue.

BUT ...
141 million $688 billion in taxes is 10.14% of total income of $6.7 trillion!
the .6% (898,912 returns paid $342 billion or 23.35% of $1.4 trillion!

SO PLEASE EXPLAIN why those that already pay 200% more then the rest of us MUST pay MORE????
OR is this JUST BEING FAIR???

WHY don't you CHECK the above figures from the IRS!!!
Directly from the IRS tax analysis..
Source::http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html#_grp1

 

[manifold]

And that's different than saying we have a government overspendig problem how exactly? Or is it your opinion that our government actually needs more money?

If the government continues to spend at current levels it sure needs more money.

You think that would fly if you ran your household that way? You gonna go to your boss and say 'hey I keep spending more than you're paying me, so I'm gonna have to have you give me more money.'? It ain't me that's cuckoo here ya idiot. You don't demand more money, YOU STOP SPENDING BEYOND YOUR MEANS. Start learning the difference between problems and symptoms. The debt is not the problem. It is the negative consequence of a problem. The problem is our government spends too much money. But if you think its that they don't have enough put your own fucking money where your mouth is and give em more of your own.

Oh I get it now, you're editorializing. I was simply stating facts.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[Bern80]

If the government continues to spend at current levels it sure needs more money.

You think that would fly if you ran your household that way? You gonna go to your boss and say 'hey I keep spending more than you're paying me, so I'm gonna have to have you give me more money.'? It ain't me that's cuckoo here ya idiot. You don't demand more money, YOU STOP SPENDING BEYOND YOUR MEANS. Start learning the difference between problems and symptoms. The debt is not the problem. It is the negative consequence of a problem. The problem is our government spends too much money. But if you think its that they don't have enough put your own fucking money where your mouth is and give em more of your own.

Oh I get it now, you're editorializing. I was simply stating facts.

But whatcha gonna do?

No. Stating government needs more money is not stating a fact.

 

[manifold]

You think that would fly if you ran your household that way? You gonna go to your boss and say 'hey I keep spending more than you're paying me, so I'm gonna have to have you give me more money.'? It ain't me that's cuckoo here ya idiot. You don't demand more money, YOU STOP SPENDING BEYOND YOUR MEANS. Start learning the difference between problems and symptoms. The debt is not the problem. It is the negative consequence of a problem. The problem is our government spends too much money. But if you think its that they don't have enough put your own fucking money where your mouth is and give em more of your own.

Oh I get it now, you're editorializing. I was simply stating facts.

But whatcha gonna do?

No. Stating government needs more money is not stating a fact.

Stating the government needs more money if it maintains current spending levels is stating a fact... which is what I said.

 

[Bern80]

Oh I get it now, you're editorializing. I was simply stating facts.

But whatcha gonna do?

No. Stating government needs more money is not stating a fact.

Stating the government needs more money if it maintains current spending levels is stating a fact... which is what I said.

Except, my weasely little friend, that's not what you tried to imply. I said our government is spending too much money and you said, no that was not the problem.

 

[manifold]

No. Stating government needs more money is not stating a fact.

Stating the government needs more money if it maintains current spending levels is stating a fact... which is what I said.

Except, my weasely little friend, that's not what you tried to imply. I said our government is spending too much money and you said, no that was not the problem.

I did not attempt to imply anything. I was simply correcting your factual miscue. If you think the best solution to the deficit problem is to cut spending only, you are not stating a fact, you are editorializing.

 

[Bern80]

Stating the government needs more money if it maintains current spending levels is stating a fact... which is what I said.

Except, my weasely little friend, that's not what you tried to imply. I said our government is spending too much money and you said, no that was not the problem.

I did not attempt to imply anything. I was simply correcting your factual miscue. If you think the best solution to the deficit problem is to cut spending only, you are not stating a fact, you are editorializing.

Which I never stated. I said our government has an over spending problem, that is not the same as as saying the only solution is to cut spending.