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

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

.....And, that's exactly what the 1%ers did.

Rather than investing the money they'd "saved", thru tax-cuts....like Bush SAID they would....they BANKED IT!!!!!!

They MUST have generated profits/interest on that cash!! They've GOT....PLENTY TO LIVE ON!!!!!

It's time they started paying Clinton tax-rates on their income, again!

Their vaults are....or, SHOULD be (if they know what they're doing).....FULL!!​

 

[Claudette]

This has become the desperate fallacy settled on by the lackeys for the Rich,

that if they can't solve the entire problem then the Rich ought to be exempt from ANY sacrifice to solve the problem.

It's idiocy.

Defelction, and piss-poor at that.

The point is this simple truth:
Cuts in entitlement spending are necessary, if there is any hope in gaining control over the deficit.

But, as entitlements buy votes for liberals and Democrats, liberals and Democrats will never admit to this this truth, much less make any move to that end.

You got that right. Entitlements are their sacred cow and they will do nothing to straighten out any of them.

Revenue isn't the problem. Spending is the problem.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This has become the desperate fallacy settled on by the lackeys for the Rich,

that if they can't solve the entire problem then the Rich ought to be exempt from ANY sacrifice to solve the problem.

It's idiocy.

Defelction, and piss-poor at that.

The point is this simple truth:
Cuts in entitlement spending are necessary, if there is any hope in gaining control over the deficit.

Ah, yes.....whacking that 1-2% of the federal-budget is gonna make a huge difference!!!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let's all keep repeating the question until they either answer it or stfu.

Who ever said what the OP is claiming?

Who is claiming that all we need to do is tax the Rich to balance the budget?

Who?

They never say....I think its a secret


or bullshit

 

[ClosedCaption]

How about we do BOTH?

Cut spending AND tax more. It's the only REAL solution when you finally get honest with yourself.
Just cutting back is going to get you X$. Cutting back AND raising taxes gets you X$ + maybe even X*2 or X*5.

I'm having to pay a lot of taxes this year and it sucks, but doing both is the only way our deficit AND our national debt will ever get corrected.

Why wont people accept doing BOTH as the solution??

The Left has already collectively accepted this as THE solution.

Only the RIGHT is being STUBBORNLY partisan and ideological like the radicals that they are, threatening the stability of the country along the way.

More lies.
The left doesn't want any significant cuts. That is why so many of the progressive dems voted against the budget deal.
Paul Ryan put forth a plan that would expand the tax base while at the same time cutting all tax rates. Same as what Obama's own comission came up with, though Obama rejected their ideas. It eliminates the loopholes that the large corporations are using.
Until you do this raising rates on the rich will do nothing.

How do you define "significant cuts"? Are "significant cuts" whatever the Repubs put forth? More? Less?

 

[kwc57]

Let's all keep repeating the question until they either answer it or stfu.

Who ever said what the OP is claiming?

Who is claiming that all we need to do is tax the Rich to balance the budget?

Who?

Nancy Folbre: Taxing the Rich - NYTimes.com

Increased taxes on the rich could help balance the budget and could ease the pressure to slash billions from social spending.

Consider, for instance, the Fairness in Taxation Act introduced by Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, which would increase the top federal marginal income tax rate to 45 percent for married couples earning more than one million dollars a year and to 49 percent for billionaires, from the current rate of 35 percent.

Historically unprecedented? Hardly. The top marginal tax rate was 50 percent in the mid-1980s and even higher in the 1950s (as the chart shows).

Such a boost could raise an estimated $78 billion, more than the cuts that House Republicans were seeking in last week’s budget talks.

Even if it fell far short it would avert proposed cuts for many valuable programs, including Head Start, which provides early childhood education, and Pell Grants, which help low-income families send their children to college.

Poll: Tax the rich to balance the budget - Business - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released on Monday.

President Barack Obama last month signed into law a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for millions of Americans, including the wealthiest, in a compromise with Republicans.

Republicans, who this week take control of the House of Representatives, want to extend all Bush-era tax cuts "permanently" for the middle class and wealthier Americans. They are also demanding spending cuts to curb the $1.3 trillion deficit.

Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed.

"tax the rich" "balance the budget" - Google Search

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Left has already collectively accepted this as THE solution.

Only the RIGHT is being STUBBORNLY partisan and ideological like the radicals that they are, threatening the stability of the country along the way.

More lies.
The left doesn't want any significant cuts. That is why so many of the progressive dems voted against the budget deal.
Paul Ryan put forth a plan that would expand the tax base while at the same time cutting all tax rates. Same as what Obama's own comission came up with, though Obama rejected their ideas. It eliminates the loopholes that the large corporations are using.
Until you do this raising rates on the rich will do nothing.

How do you define "significant cuts"? Are "significant cuts" whatever the Repubs put forth? More? Less?

Cuts that get the deficits down to what they were FY2006-2007.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let's all keep repeating the question until they either answer it or stfu.

Who ever said what the OP is claiming?

Who is claiming that all we need to do is tax the Rich to balance the budget?

Who?

Nancy Folbre: Taxing the Rich - NYTimes.com

Increased taxes on the rich could help balance the budget and could ease the pressure to slash billions from social spending.

Consider, for instance, the Fairness in Taxation Act introduced by Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, which would increase the top federal marginal income tax rate to 45 percent for married couples earning more than one million dollars a year and to 49 percent for billionaires, from the current rate of 35 percent.

Historically unprecedented? Hardly. The top marginal tax rate was 50 percent in the mid-1980s and even higher in the 1950s (as the chart shows).

Such a boost could raise an estimated $78 billion, more than the cuts that House Republicans were seeking in last week’s budget talks.

Even if it fell far short it would avert proposed cuts for many valuable programs, including Head Start, which provides early childhood education, and Pell Grants, which help low-income families send their children to college.

Poll: Tax the rich to balance the budget - Business - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released on Monday.

President Barack Obama last month signed into law a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for millions of Americans, including the wealthiest, in a compromise with Republicans.

Republicans, who this week take control of the House of Representatives, want to extend all Bush-era tax cuts "permanently" for the middle class and wealthier Americans. They are also demanding spending cuts to curb the $1.3 trillion deficit.

Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed.

"tax the rich" "balance the budget" - Google Search

I dont think you read your own links. The question was Who is claiming taxing the rich will fix the budget? So far you've only included links that show ppl think increasing the taxes on the rich is a good "first step" to "help" balance the budget.

 

[Bern80]

This has become the desperate fallacy settled on by the lackeys for the Rich,

that if they can't solve the entire problem then the Rich ought to be exempt from ANY sacrifice to solve the problem.

It's idiocy.

Defelction, and piss-poor at that.

The point is this simple truth:
Cuts in entitlement spending are necessary, if there is any hope in gaining control over the deficit.

But, as entitlements buy votes for liberals and Democrats, liberals and Democrats will never admit to this this truth, much less make any move to that end.

You got that right. Entitlements are their sacred cow and they will do nothing to straighten out any of them.

Revenue isn't the problem. Spending is the problem.

Exactley, which is why all this pissing and moaning by the left about who pays what taxes and who should pay more is just ridiculous. It rests on the presumption that government just has to have all of this money and actually has to have more.

However, the right has its own sacred cows. Mainly the military and that could be cut massively as well.

 

[kwc57]

Let's all keep repeating the question until they either answer it or stfu.

Who ever said what the OP is claiming?

Who is claiming that all we need to do is tax the Rich to balance the budget?

Who?

Nancy Folbre: Taxing the Rich - NYTimes.com

Increased taxes on the rich could help balance the budget and could ease the pressure to slash billions from social spending.

Consider, for instance, the Fairness in Taxation Act introduced by Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, which would increase the top federal marginal income tax rate to 45 percent for married couples earning more than one million dollars a year and to 49 percent for billionaires, from the current rate of 35 percent.

Historically unprecedented? Hardly. The top marginal tax rate was 50 percent in the mid-1980s and even higher in the 1950s (as the chart shows).

Such a boost could raise an estimated $78 billion, more than the cuts that House Republicans were seeking in last week’s budget talks.

Even if it fell far short it would avert proposed cuts for many valuable programs, including Head Start, which provides early childhood education, and Pell Grants, which help low-income families send their children to college.

Poll: Tax the rich to balance the budget - Business - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released on Monday.

President Barack Obama last month signed into law a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for millions of Americans, including the wealthiest, in a compromise with Republicans.

Republicans, who this week take control of the House of Representatives, want to extend all Bush-era tax cuts "permanently" for the middle class and wealthier Americans. They are also demanding spending cuts to curb the $1.3 trillion deficit.

Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed.

"tax the rich" "balance the budget" - Google Search

I dont think you read your own links. The question was Who is claiming taxing the rich will fix the budget? So far you've only included links that show ppl think increasing the taxes on the rich is a good "first step" to "help" balance the budget.

I read them. You need to read them in context. People are calling for taxing the rich as part of the solution to balance the budget. Show me where it says they are not calling for increased taxation on the rich for that purpose and then you have an argument.

 

[Bern80]

The Left has already collectively accepted this as THE solution.

Only the RIGHT is being STUBBORNLY partisan and ideological like the radicals that they are, threatening the stability of the country along the way.

More lies.
The left doesn't want any significant cuts. That is why so many of the progressive dems voted against the budget deal.
Paul Ryan put forth a plan that would expand the tax base while at the same time cutting all tax rates. Same as what Obama's own comission came up with, though Obama rejected their ideas. It eliminates the loopholes that the large corporations are using.
Until you do this raising rates on the rich will do nothing.

How do you define "significant cuts"? Are "significant cuts" whatever the Repubs put forth? More? Less?

Significant cuts would mean a fundamental redefinition of the role of government. Government's role is to defend your liberties........and that's about it. That is not how libs see the role of government and that is why they can't suggest squat to cut.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Nancy Folbre: Taxing the Rich - NYTimes.com

Increased taxes on the rich could help balance the budget and could ease the pressure to slash billions from social spending.

Consider, for instance, the Fairness in Taxation Act introduced by Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, which would increase the top federal marginal income tax rate to 45 percent for married couples earning more than one million dollars a year and to 49 percent for billionaires, from the current rate of 35 percent.

Historically unprecedented? Hardly. The top marginal tax rate was 50 percent in the mid-1980s and even higher in the 1950s (as the chart shows).

Such a boost could raise an estimated $78 billion, more than the cuts that House Republicans were seeking in last week’s budget talks.

Even if it fell far short it would avert proposed cuts for many valuable programs, including Head Start, which provides early childhood education, and Pell Grants, which help low-income families send their children to college.

Poll: Tax the rich to balance the budget - Business - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released on Monday.

President Barack Obama last month signed into law a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for millions of Americans, including the wealthiest, in a compromise with Republicans.

Republicans, who this week take control of the House of Representatives, want to extend all Bush-era tax cuts "permanently" for the middle class and wealthier Americans. They are also demanding spending cuts to curb the $1.3 trillion deficit.

Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed.

"tax the rich" "balance the budget" - Google Search

I dont think you read your own links. The question was Who is claiming taxing the rich will fix the budget? So far you've only included links that show ppl think increasing the taxes on the rich is a good "first step" to "help" balance the budget.

I read them. You need to read them in context. People are calling for taxing the rich as part of the solution to balance the budget. Show me where it says they are not calling for increased taxation on the rich for that purpose and then you have an argument.

exactly, so I'm wondering why you keep claiming that someone somewhere is claiming that taxing the rich WILL FIX the debt. The only thing ppl are saying is that it will HELP repair the debt faster. Are you disputing that? You have a link that shows ANYONE ANYWHERE is saying raising taxes WILL FIX the debt?

 

[ClosedCaption]

More lies.
The left doesn't want any significant cuts. That is why so many of the progressive dems voted against the budget deal.
Paul Ryan put forth a plan that would expand the tax base while at the same time cutting all tax rates. Same as what Obama's own comission came up with, though Obama rejected their ideas. It eliminates the loopholes that the large corporations are using.
Until you do this raising rates on the rich will do nothing.

How do you define "significant cuts"? Are "significant cuts" whatever the Repubs put forth? More? Less?

Significant cuts would mean a fundamental redefinition of the role of government. Government's role is defend your liberties........and that's about it. That is not how libs see the role of government and that is why they can't suggest squat to cut.

You love using big vague words that mean nothing. How do you define "significant cuts"? Is it more, less or exactly what the repubs are putting forth?

A "fundamental redifinition of the role of government" sounds nice but what does it mean? You couldve said "change govt" and saved the typing but "change govt" means what?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you define "significant cuts"? Are "significant cuts" whatever the Repubs put forth? More? Less?

Significant cuts would mean a fundamental redefinition of the role of government. Government's role is defend your liberties........and that's about it. That is not how libs see the role of government and that is why they can't suggest squat to cut.

You love using big vague words that mean nothing. How do you define "significant cuts"? Is it more, less or exactly what the repubs are putting forth?

A "fundamental redifinition of the role of government" sounds nice but what does it mean? You couldve said "change govt" and saved the typing but "change govt" means what?

Cuts that get the deficits down to what they were FY2006-2007.

 

[Shogun]

More lies.
The left doesn't want any significant cuts. That is why so many of the progressive dems voted against the budget deal.
Paul Ryan put forth a plan that would expand the tax base while at the same time cutting all tax rates. Same as what Obama's own comission came up with, though Obama rejected their ideas. It eliminates the loopholes that the large corporations are using.
Until you do this raising rates on the rich will do nothing.

How do you define "significant cuts"? Are "significant cuts" whatever the Repubs put forth? More? Less?

Significant cuts would mean a fundamental redefinition of the role of government. Government's role is to defend your liberties........and that's about it. That is not how libs see the role of government and that is why they can't suggest squat to cut.

yea, who needs an FDA when a few dead babies is all it takes to sway a market, EH BERN?

 

[kwc57]

I dont think you read your own links. The question was Who is claiming taxing the rich will fix the budget? So far you've only included links that show ppl think increasing the taxes on the rich is a good "first step" to "help" balance the budget.

I read them. You need to read them in context. People are calling for taxing the rich as part of the solution to balance the budget. Show me where it says they are not calling for increased taxation on the rich for that purpose and then you have an argument.

exactly, so I'm wondering why you keep claiming that someone somewhere is claiming that taxing the rich WILL FIX the debt. The only thing ppl are saying is that it will HELP repair the debt faster. Are you disputing that? You have a link that shows ANYONE ANYWHERE is saying raising taxes WILL FIX the debt?

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.

 

[kwc57]

How do you define "significant cuts"? Are "significant cuts" whatever the Repubs put forth? More? Less?

Significant cuts would mean a fundamental redefinition of the role of government. Government's role is defend your liberties........and that's about it. That is not how libs see the role of government and that is why they can't suggest squat to cut.

You love using big vague words that mean nothing. How do you define "significant cuts"? Is it more, less or exactly what the repubs are putting forth?

A "fundamental redifinition of the role of government" sounds nice but what does it mean? You couldve said "change govt" and saved the typing but "change govt" means what?

At least 50% across the board. Specific enough for you?

 

[Bern80]

How do you define "significant cuts"? Are "significant cuts" whatever the Repubs put forth? More? Less?

Significant cuts would mean a fundamental redefinition of the role of government. Government's role is defend your liberties........and that's about it. That is not how libs see the role of government and that is why they can't suggest squat to cut.

You love using big vague words that mean nothing. How do you define "significant cuts"? Is it more, less or exactly what the repubs are putting forth?

A "fundamental redifinition of the role of government" sounds nice but what does it mean? You couldve said "change govt" and saved the typing but "change govt" means what?

It means exactly what I said; to defend your liberties. If said program does not meet that criteria then government should not be doing it. How is that a vague concept to you?

 

[Bern80]

How do you define "significant cuts"? Are "significant cuts" whatever the Repubs put forth? More? Less?

Significant cuts would mean a fundamental redefinition of the role of government. Government's role is to defend your liberties........and that's about it. That is not how libs see the role of government and that is why they can't suggest squat to cut.

yea, who needs an FDA when a few dead babies is all it takes to sway a market, EH BERN?

Not the Shogun quote I was looking for. Come on buddy you know the one. Right on the tip of your tongue. You know you want to say it............

Even you can't be so naive as to beieve the FDA is some uber altrusitic organization. Plus I think most companies are fairly aware that killing your customers isn't going to work out too well as a business strategy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This has become the desperate fallacy settled on by the lackeys for the Rich,

that if they can't solve the entire problem then the Rich ought to be exempt from ANY sacrifice to solve the problem.

It's idiocy.

Defelction, and piss-poor at that.

The point is this simple truth:
Cuts in entitlement spending are necessary, if there is any hope in gaining control over the deficit.

But, as entitlements buy votes for liberals and Democrats, liberals and Democrats will never admit to this this truth, much less make any move to that end.

How much should the Rich contribute to the sacrifice?