Can We Tax The Rich Enough To Get Out Of Debt?

[drsmith1072]

Do you honestly think it will help fix the debt? Honestly? We are so deep in debt that it wouldn't do squat even if you confiscated all of their wealth. We've got to quit spending. When you've maxed your credit card, you don't just move onto the next one in your wallet. Spending across the board needs to be cut from defense to welfare......and when I say cut, I mean cut. Deep. That is what individual people have to do and it is what governments need to do.

Yes, more money in and less money spent is how you get out of debt, right?

For an individual, yes. If needed, you go get a second job while cutting your expenses to get your finances under control. For a government, there isn't a second job......you have to live within your means under the revenue you do get. So your first line of defense is cutting spending deeply and sorting out what is the top priority in your spending.

So according to you there is no way for a government to increase revenues?? really?

It is pure bullshit to say that people who have busted their ass to get ahead have some sort of obligation to just hand it over to the government when we have 5th generation welfare receipients sitting on their asses thinking they are somehow entitled to a portion of that persons wealth.

It is BS for you to say that since i don't think anyone here is making that argument. Who here is saying that those who worked hard have to hand it <all> over to the government??

How about this. Put your money where your mouth is. I'm sure you have a spare bedroom or some sort of room that can be converted to a bedroom in your house. Maybe your garage. Obviously, you have more rooms than you need you lucky greedy bastard. Go down to the area of town where the homeless live and bring one home to live in your spare room. Don't be greedy with your house. Give up that extra room you don't use to someone who really needs it. Share the sacrifice. Spread the wealth. That is the argument for taxing people more who make over a certain dollar amount isn't it? Do your part. Let us know about your new family member. Post some pictures for us. While you're at it, make sure you provide them with groceries too. It's the right thing to do.

So you are actually comparing increasing taxes to forcing someone to give away a room in their homes to a stranger?? WOW! and to think you actually got thanked for that drivel.

 

[drsmith1072]

ooooh you used the word mathematical. omg now I have to believe you!

You're welcome to prove me wrong. I'll wait.

Aren't you supposed to prove your own argument??

 

[Vanquish]

ooooh you used the word mathematical. omg now I have to believe you!

You're welcome to prove me wrong. I'll wait.

Aren't you supposed to prove your own argument??

Apparently not. USMB is where you sign up, find a thread you like on a topic you like/hate, furiously type up your opinion, assert it as fact, then ask others to disprove your opinion.

Wonderful forum, really.

 

[drsmith1072]

Now that some of you have pointed it out...it was as plain as the nose on my face. The argument that "if we tax the rich 100%" it wouldnt be enough DOES ASSUME you're talking about a one-time payment. HAHAHHAHA. Wow. Now all that railing seems increasingly more absurd than it already was.

Yeah I thought it was odd that they were making that as the core of their argument seeing as how no one is trying to pay off the entire debt in one single payment.

 

[drsmith1072]

Think of it like this...

The purpose of business is to make profit. (I'm not saying profit is bad. on the contrary, I love making profits)

To make a profit, one attempts to lower costs while maintaining (or increasing) prices.

Based on those two premises, what makes anyone think that if you give money back to companies (or the wealthy who own them) that the money will necessarily be re-invested?

Especially in today's economy...perceived as so critically bad...companies and people are going to hang on to their money...now more than ever.

This idea of the "benevolent rich" who are going to use tax cuts to hire more people is simply an assumption. In reality, the rich will do whatever makes the most profit. If it's profitable to hire more people...they will. If it's not...they wont. Furthermore, just because it could be profitable, that doesn't mean someone will decide to do it. Again, if saving seems more prudent than attempting a profit...they might just save.

Tax Cuts were part of the much-maligned stimulus...and you see where that got us.

I dont think profits are evil...I'm just realistic...people are going to hold onto their money unless they are really convinced there's profit in investing it.

The fact that the "job creators" had bush's taxcuts for over 8 years and CUT jobs instead of re-investing them to create or KEEP jobs shows that they have a trend of "i've got mine, screw the rest of you." as they maintain their profits and bonuses as they force the sacrificing onto their former employees who are out of a job and their current employees who have to work harder to maintain the productivity that used to be accomplished by more employees.

However, I agree that profits really aren't the problem. It's the self serving "benevolent rich" who expect everyone else to sacrifice as they feed their own greed.

So your freedom to do as you wish, with whom you wish, how you wish, with your own things and in your own moral compass means everything... but when it comes to others that YOU SUBJECTIVELY deem as having enough or too much, it is not ok for them to have the same freedoms...

Fucking collectivist leftist scum

When a company or employer loses money for a period of time, or has even just a hard time scraping by at even, when they get a break or an upswing, you don't expect them to recoup?? You expect them instantly to expand workforce because it is YOUR goal... well, sorry buddy, businesses are not in place to take care of the situations of others before it's own situation... and in this free society (which idiot leftists want less and less freedom for individuals and companies to do with their personal property as they please), that choice is theirs, whether it makes you feel bad or not

Is that actually supposed to address anything that I actually said or do you enjoy making shite up attributing it to people so you can attack them for something that they never actually said??

Furthermore, you try to come at me with that bs about "SUBJECTIVELY deem as having enough or too much, it is not ok for them to have the same freedoms." and yet isn't that bascially the same argument that the right made against public sector workers in places like wisconsin and how they have it better than their private sector counterparts when they don't need it??

Thanks for playing you be sure to let me know when you want to talk about what I actually said.

Oh and thanks for the neg rep. I do find it hilarious how you put so much stock in something so easilly manipulated or is it a way for you to just attack someone personally because you know your spin doesn't address what the post actually said??

 

[drsmith1072]

Think of it like this...

The purpose of business is to make profit. (I'm not saying profit is bad. on the contrary, I love making profits)

To make a profit, one attempts to lower costs while maintaining (or increasing) prices.

Based on those two premises, what makes anyone think that if you give money back to companies (or the wealthy who own them) that the money will necessarily be re-invested?

Especially in today's economy...perceived as so critically bad...companies and people are going to hang on to their money...now more than ever.

This idea of the "benevolent rich" who are going to use tax cuts to hire more people is simply an assumption. In reality, the rich will do whatever makes the most profit. If it's profitable to hire more people...they will. If it's not...they wont. Furthermore, just because it could be profitable, that doesn't mean someone will decide to do it. Again, if saving seems more prudent than attempting a profit...they might just save.

Tax Cuts were part of the much-maligned stimulus...and you see where that got us.

I dont think profits are evil...I'm just realistic...people are going to hold onto their money unless they are really convinced there's profit in investing it.

The fact that the "job creators" had bush's taxcuts for over 8 years and CUT jobs instead of re-investing them to create or KEEP jobs shows that they have a trend of "i've got mine, screw the rest of you." as they maintain their profits and bonuses as they force the sacrificing onto their former employees who are out of a job and their current employees who have to work harder to maintain the productivity that used to be accomplished by more employees.

However, I agree that profits really aren't the problem. It's the self serving "benevolent rich" who expect everyone else to sacrifice as they feed their own greed.

What was the unemployment rate under Bush for the first 7 years, and not talking about after the downturn from the housing bubble?

So you ask me to answer a question instead of making an actual point and then try to set the parameters to suit your needs?? If you have somethign to say just say it. Furthermore, omitting the facts that don't suit your predisposed position is beyond absurd.

 

[drsmith1072]

So your freedom to do as you wish, with whom you wish, how you wish, with your own things and in your own moral compass means everything... but when it comes to others that YOU SUBJECTIVELY deem as having enough or too much, it is not ok for them to have the same freedoms...

Fucking collectivist leftist scum

When a company or employer loses money for a period of time, or has even just a hard time scraping by at even, when they get a break or an upswing, you don't expect them to recoup?? You expect them instantly to expand workforce because it is YOUR goal... well, sorry buddy, businesses are not in place to take care of the situations of others before it's own situation... and in this free society (which idiot leftists want less and less freedom for individuals and companies to do with their personal property as they please), that choice is theirs, whether it makes you feel bad or not

well it sure seems that they would since that is the biggest reason for lowering their tax burden, so they can help create jobs, but we know just like you that it is just a pipe dream, because the rich are all about the rich and will do nothing just to benefit anyone else if it doesn't translate into profits to them.

Well.. what it seems to you and reality are 2 different things...

Again... freedom to do as YOU choose you like.. .freedom for those who you deem to have too much is quite another in your eyes...

The leftist support of selective equal treatment by government shows it's ugly little envious head, once again... like clockwork

And once again DD ingores what was actually said as he tries to insert his own opinion over that of the poster's because he obviously knows best what the poster is actually saying even as he tries to rail against other posters as he claims that they believe that they know what is best for others. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

I thought "life" was important to you rightwingers?? Or do you only choose to defend what you refer to as a life BEFORE it is born? LOL

I'm a right winger, but I'm not anti abortion, so your whine falls on deaf ears.

The whole abortion debate is a distraction from the real issue, as far as I'm concerned. I wish the Christian Fundamentalists would knock it off.

Uh I was responding to someone else and if it does NOT apply to you then why respond to what you call a whine even as you whine about my post that does NOT apply to you. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Clinton passed a steady 3.9% unemployment rate to Bush and Bush passed a skyrocketing 7.7% unemployment rate to Obama.

You really are this dumb, aren't you?

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Gee, you left out the year 2000! I wonder why? And you stopped highlighting with the skyrocketing UE at the end of 2008, 2.4% in 8 months. I wonder why?

2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9

Yeah I was going to ask the same thing. Why did he leave off 2000 and not highlight 2001 and then why did he stop highlighting half way through 2008?

 

[drsmith1072]

You really are this dumb, aren't you?

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Gee, you left out the year 2000! I wonder why? And you stopped highlighting with the skyrocketing UE at the end of 2008, 2.4% in 8 months. I wonder why?

2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9

You really are that dumb, Ed. First, I highlited my first post that you failed to acknowledge.
Look at the fucking source I gave you and come back and tell me what years you see. I left out nothing.

WOW! Imagine that, no answers from meister just more spin.

 

[drsmith1072]

Want to place blame? Blame:
Chris Cox-R Chris Dodd-D Bawney Fwanks-D

ADDI was Bush's baby, and Bush's alone. It was the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign.

There was a lot more legislation that ADDI that created the problem. Your just too disengenuous to admit that due to the fact that your blinded by your partisanship.

Really?? Like??

And are you now admitting that Bush's ADDI was part of the problem??

 

[drsmith1072]

You're welcome to prove me wrong. I'll wait.

Aren't you supposed to prove your own argument??

Apparently not. USMB is where you sign up, find a thread you like on a topic you like/hate, furiously type up your opinion, assert it as fact, then ask others to disprove your opinion.

Wonderful forum, really.

Well, it has been my experience that whenever someone on the left says something someone on the right doesn't agree with, the poster on the right always demands that the poster making the claim should provide the substance to support the claim. However, recently I have been dealling with more and more right wingers who demand that you must prove them wrong even as they demand that you prove all of your claims in accordance with their standards and parameters.

Like meister trying to claim that you shouldn't include the unemployment rate at the end of W's last term because the bubble burst and yet we should pay attention to the uneployment rate under obama even though those conditions were a continuation of the effects of the bubble bursting. He tries to make an argument and then tells you what facts you can and can't include. LOL

 

[Bern80]

You're welcome to prove me wrong. I'll wait.

Aren't you supposed to prove your own argument??

Apparently not. USMB is where you sign up, find a thread you like on a topic you like/hate, furiously type up your opinion, assert it as fact, then ask others to disprove your opinion.

Wonderful forum, really.

Could we be a bit more petulent and immature? Normally I'm all for backing things up with evidence as well.......except when those things are common knowledge and intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. As my good bud ed, pointed out, when taxes are collected based on a percentage of income, it isn't possible for any group but the rich to pay the bulk of tax burden.

 

[Vanquish]

Wrong. There can be a larger # of lower-paid people paying a smaller %...but ending up paying a LARGER AMOUNT/SHARE.

It's called a normal curve. You might want to go look it up.

And no, I'm not being petulent when you fail to support your positions then ask me to disprove what you havent even proven yet.

 

[expat_panama]

Aren't you supposed to prove your own argument??

Apparently not. USMB is where you sign up, find a thread you like on a topic you like/hate, furiously type up your opinion, assert it as fact, then ask others to disprove your opinion.

Wonderful forum, really.

Could we be a bit more petulent and immature? Normally I'm all for backing things up with evidence as well.......except when those things are common knowledge and intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. As my good bud ed, pointed out, when taxes are collected based on a percentage of income, it isn't possible for any group but the rich to pay the bulk of tax burden.

Wrong. There can be a larger # of lower-paid people paying a smaller %...but ending up paying a LARGER AMOUNT/SHARE....

OK, it's the difference between what's possible and what is.

Right now the US tax code is set up so the rich pay and the poor get. Sure, the Marxist press and their comrades in power say otherwise, but let's talk reality here with actual payments and and actual receipt records:

Virtually all taxable income is with the over-$100k group.

 

[drsmith1072]

Aren't you supposed to prove your own argument??

Apparently not. USMB is where you sign up, find a thread you like on a topic you like/hate, furiously type up your opinion, assert it as fact, then ask others to disprove your opinion.

Wonderful forum, really.

Could we be a bit more petulent and immature?

So pointing out the truth is petulent and immature?? Got it.

Normally I'm all for backing things up with evidence as well.......except when those things are common knowledge and intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

Normally?? So you admit that you did not substantiate your own claims and yet demanded that others prove you wrong?? Thanks for the admission now how about you do what you claim that you "normally" do and provide the substance instead of hiding behind what you claim to be common knowledge?

As my good bud ed, pointed out, when taxes are collected based on a percentage of income, it isn't possible for any group but the rich to pay the bulk of tax burden.

Nice assumption but even IF you could substantiate that how does that argument prove that they pay their "share" and who do you call the rich??

 

[edthecynic]

Apparently not. USMB is where you sign up, find a thread you like on a topic you like/hate, furiously type up your opinion, assert it as fact, then ask others to disprove your opinion.

Wonderful forum, really.

Could we be a bit more petulent and immature? Normally I'm all for backing things up with evidence as well.......except when those things are common knowledge and intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. As my good bud ed, pointed out, when taxes are collected based on a percentage of income, it isn't possible for any group but the rich to pay the bulk of tax burden.

Wrong. There can be a larger # of lower-paid people paying a smaller %...but ending up paying a LARGER AMOUNT/SHARE....

OK, it's the difference between what's possible and what is.

Right now the US tax code is set up so the rich pay and the poor get. Sure, the Marxist press and their comrades in power say otherwise, but let's talk reality here with actual payments and and actual receipt records:

Virtually all taxable income is with the over-$100k group.

Actually, the bulk of the TAXABLE income is in the middle, from $50k to $500k. It' the middle class who pay the bills for the rich and the poor.

 

[expat_panama]

...the bulk of the TAXABLE income is in the middle, from $50k to $500k. It' the middle class who pay the bills for the rich and the poor.

No, I found that by printing out and measuring the bars that the $500k+ incomes total $1.3T and the $50-75k are barely half that. Here's a graphic from another thread on the subject:

Right or wrong the rich pay the bills. I say this is not a bad thing considering the fact that bill's have to be paid, the rich can, and the poor can't. What we need in more rich people.

 

[skookerasbil]

Is the old adage, "Liberalism is a mental disorder!" true.................

Oh.........indeed it is................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Petition to Redistribute GPA Scores[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgTFiMUF4kY&feature=related]YouTube - Liberal Taxes explained[/ame]