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

[Vanquish]

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

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

You never proved anything to the contrary. I would I even bother?

 

[Bern80]

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

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

You never proved anything to the contrary. I would I even bother?

You really need me to prove that the wealthy are footing the bulk of the tax bill? That's not something that needs proving. It's fairly common knowledge. Quit being such an immature chicken shit, vanq.

 

[Vanquish]

Not true, sir.

If you look at the distribution of the tax base, you'll find a chart that shows that the 75k - 200k earners are the VAST majority of the tax base - i.e. the middle class.

Again, you're wrong. Which is fairly common knowledge.

 

[Bern80]

Not true, sir.

If you look at the distribution of the tax base, you'll find a chart that shows that the 75k - 200k earners are the VAST majority of the tax base - i.e. the middle class.

Again, you're wrong. Which is fairly common knowledge.

Still wrong I'm afraid. In truth the middle class and poor are the vast majority of the tax base. That does NOT mean they are footing the bulk of the bill. All that means is there are more middle class and poor than rich people.

You have yet to reconcile your asanine notion that the rich aren't paying their share when the reality is you have about 5% of the nation contributing 40% of the taxes and close to half the rest of the population contributing NOTHING. Again, stop the bullshit about how you care about a fair tax code. If you cared about fair you woudl be demanding that those who contribute nothing start paying their share.

 

[Vanquish]

Oh so you HAVENT gone to go see the breakdown of the 48% who don't pay yet.

You're going to be in for a bit of a shock, dearie.

 

[midcan5]

This is the typical wingnut assumption / argument / talking point / spin, why do you worship the 'rich' is my first question? Or why do you cry for the rich, do you really think they need your tears? Or your assist? The well to do should pay their fair share, they do fine and since they benefit most from the society that supports them and from the consumers, each of us, who are the primary support of a robust economy, they too should pay, not hide behind you wingnuts and your inane analogies which ignore reality.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State

And why does everyone ignore the waste on military spending and three wars, one of which, Iraq, was an invasion of a sovereign nation based on spin.

 

[editec]

The top 1% or even top 10% DO NOT pay the majority of TAXES it takes to keep this society going.

They do pay a greater share of FEDERAL INCOME taxes than the other classes, though.

Fairness doesn't have much to do with taxation, folks.

No more than fairness has much to do with incomes.

It ought not to be too confusing, in a land where the range of incomes is so vast, naturally the burden of taxation ought to reflect that, too.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh so you HAVENT gone to go see the breakdown of the 48% who don't pay yet.

You're going to be in for a bit of a shock, dearie.

Not only that, it is the tax cut policies of the GOP that generated that 48%, policies the CON$ want to make PERMANENT.
For example, there were only 25% paying no income tax before Bush's tax cuts and CON$ want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, so they can whine and bitch permanently!!

 

[Bern80]

This is the typical wingnut assumption / argument / talking point / spin, why do you worship the 'rich' is my first question? Or why do you cry for the rich, do you really think they need your tears? Or your assist? The well to do should pay their fair share, they do fine and since they benefit most from the society that supports them and from the consumers, each of us, who are the primary support of a robust economy, they too should pay, not hide behind you wingnuts and your inane analogies which ignore reality.

I don't worship them. I just feel it is wrong to malign a segment of the population simply because they're rich. In the vast majority of cases they didn't harm me or you in order to become wealthy. So why the animosity? I also don't see how being rich makes it fair that they must disprorpotionally shoulder the tax burden.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State

And that just proves the other poster right about what liberals believe about property. They don't believe property is yours (including money) and is your right to protect and keep. Liberals believe money is theirs and they just allow you to keep a certain amount of it. If an individual has arranged a business such that it yields him/her an 'absurdly' large income, what fucking business is it of yours?

And why does everyone ignore the waste on military spending and three wars, one of which, Iraq, was an invasion of a sovereign nation based on spin.

I don't. I have said repeatedly that the defense department could be shrunk drastically and still keep our country just as safe.

 

[Bern80]

The top 1% or even top 10% DO NOT pay the majority of TAXES it takes to keep this society going.

They do pay a greater share of FEDERAL INCOME taxes than the other classes, though.

Fairness doesn't have much to do with taxation, folks.

No more than fairness has much to do with incomes.

It ought not to be too confusing, in a land where the range of incomes is so vast, naturally the burden of taxation ought to reflect that, too.

Of course when you pay taxes based on a percentage rate, those with the most will be contributing the most. That doesn't mean you can't also fairly distribute the rate among income levels. There isn't any reason for example we can't have an across the board 30% federal income tax rate.

 

[Vanquish]

Liberals believe money is theirs and they just allow you to keep a certain amount of it.

Quoted for bullshit. That's one of the most asinine things I've ever read on this board. I don't know one liberal that thinks that.

 

[drsmith1072]

Seeing as the budget shortfall is 1.5 Trillion just this year alone, how much more should we tax the "evil rich" so that government can balance the books?
Can We Tax The Rich Enough To Get Out Of Debt? | Tarheel Red

First, the deficit is $1.5 trillion dollars. Can the folks who make more than $200,000 make that up? There are 4,359,936 filers who make that amount of money. Simple math says that if we take 1,500,000,000,000 and divide it by 4,359,936 we get $344,041.7. That means we would have to bill each of those people who earn more than $200,000 a year $344,042 a year. Just to break even.

If confiscating all of their money won't balance the books, then why do some say just raising their taxes would do it?

So are you actually trying to make the argument that we shouldn't increase taxes on "the rich" because it would take $344,041.7 from each to pay off the debt in one fell swoop instead of increasing their taxes a whopping 3% as we cut spending and work to pay off the debt over time??

BTW who is asking that we pay off the debt in one huge payment of 1.5 trillion?? Since that is your argument i am sure that you can find someone who actually made that claim, can't you??

 

[drsmith1072]

Barack Obama told the nation last Wednesday that “improvements” in Medicare and hiking taxes on the wealthy would stabilize government spending and bring deficit spending to what can charitably be described as a dull roar. The Wall Street Journal does some fact checking on these claims and finds them entirely false. Even if the “rich” gets defined down to the top 10% of filers — whose average annual household income is $114,000 — the level of revenue from even a 100% tax would still not close the budget gap:

WSJ shows taxing the rich won’t cover the bill « Hot Air

And your article makes the same bs claim that the OP makes. No one is talking about paying off all of the debt in one payment so why pretend that is the goal and make arguments based on such a false assumption??

 

[mnbasketball]

and the fact is IKE raised the taxes of those who make a lot to over 90% to pay off the debt.

Bringing in more money from higher taxes to the rich will not do it on it's lonesome self but it would be a start. Putting more people on the working side and paying taxes would help even more. Then cutting programs which do not work or removing the waste from programs would also help. Then you go to entitlements which need to go to means testing on a moving scale. Then only them should we think about cutting benefits to these programs or raising the age limits. I would think a small increase in the amount collected from tax payers along with a raising of the level that we can tax for SS to a much higher rate, even if we don't include the employer's base amount.

But the truth is we need to figure out a way that protects our retirees and those who are in need of help now and in the future! Those who are 55 or older can not be a cut off age as to who we will help, and those who come later will be more left to take care of their own problem.

 

[drsmith1072]

The top 1% have over $20 billion in wealth.

See ya'll? What did I just get done posting?

We must confiscate ALL THEIR ACCUMULATED WEALTH GOING BACK 10 YEARS as well as ALL WAGES FOR SAME TIME PERIOD.

You also posting this

Of course, this won't make a dent in the national debt, which is a different animal entirely from the annual budget. National debt is running around 14 trillion.....

BUT.... We'll all feel better hosing "the rich."

So i can see why you editted that out.

If it is true that they have $20 trillion in "wealth" and you admit that the national debt is $14 trillion, then taking all of their wealth would end the national debt.

So how can you be both correct and wrong at the same time?? LOL

 

[Vanquish]

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.

 

[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.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Ryans plan was a joke. His plan for medicare does not affect those currently retired nor does it affect those over 55 whenthey choose to retire. It does nothing to address the cost of current recipients or those who will retire in the next 10 years. It does nothing to address the cost of the baby boomers. So how does his passing on the costs for the care for these individuals onto the next few generations address the current problems with medicare??

Furthermore, care to explain what loopholes you are referring to?? Exactly HOW does his plan expand the tax base while at the same time cutting all tax rates??

 

[Meister]

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?