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

[drsmith1072]

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.

Actually BOTH are part of the problem.

You guys on the right love to equate the fed and spending to a private household and ask stupid questions about "what would you do if you were spending more than you were making?" Well I know one thing for sure and that is I wouldn't voluntarilly take a pay cut.

How does less revenue help you pay the bills if you already can't pay your bills??

Yes cutting spending is part of the equation but so is increasing revenues.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

PART of the solution and yet the post that you responsded to asked

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?

He asks who says that we ONLY need to raise taxes to fix the debt and you respond with an article that lists raising taxes a PART of the solution and not the only step.

Are you catching up to speed on how you are WRONG yet??

 

[mnbasketball]

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

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.

 

[mnbasketball]

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?

at the end of Bush's term we were losing 800,000 jobs a month and it took a while for Obama to stop the bleeding and now we are on a path to recovery, even though it's a narrow path. So the unemployment rate is a direct effect of Bush and what he left to Obama, and if not for Obama it would have risen to 15%.

 

[drsmith1072]

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?

So how do you define "defend our liberties"? What are the specific liberties you are referring to?? Who gets to decide whether in meets that vague criteria?? Once again you are asked for specifics and respond with vagueness. LOL

If CC already asked these questions and you actually provided some specifics then NVM.

 

[drsmith1072]

Why is it that when a single woman has her 2nd, 3rd and 4th child she demands each time I have to pay for them no questions asked?
Why can't we end that?

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

 

[drsmith1072]

It's not about how much you can get out of the rich,it's about no one should get a free ride on the backs of taxpayers. The rich corporations use the services that taxes provide(probaly more so) and they should pay their fair share.

How on earth can you conclude that they don't already pay their fair share?

For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.

General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010 - ABC News

 

[Bern80]

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.

And yet, whether you realize it or not, you stated exactly that when you said....

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.

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

 

[DiamondDave]

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

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

 

[LibocalypseNow]

If the Hopey Changey One wants to go after those "Evil Rich People",he should start with his good buddies over at GE. They don't pay any Taxes. And wtf is wrong with Hopey Changey putting top GE Exec Jeffrey Immelt in as his "Jobs Czar?" Looks like despicable corrupt cronyism to me. Where are all the usual suspect Lefty Wingers criticizing this President and GE? Jeffrey Immelt "Jobs Czar?" Yikes! I'm pretty sure if an 'R' was in there right now,the usual suspects would be hopping up on their high horses screeching about how "Evil" this stuff is. The Left is dominated by dishonest hypocrites at this point. From endless War Mongering over Libya to this. They just don't have much credibility left.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

Only the liberal drones swallow the theory that Bush caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

Only the liberal drones swallow the theory that Bush caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) is what changed the rules to allow no down payment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into.

Even your MessiahRushie admits the subprime problem first surfaced in 2004, following that new Bush law.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

 

[bripat9643]

Only the liberal drones swallow the theory that Bush caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) is what changed the rules to allow no down payment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into.

Even your MessiahRushie admits the subprime problem first surfaced in 2004, following that new Bush law.

THE ADDI did not force banks to grant loans to anyone they didn't want to loan to. It provided the downpayment so that people who didn't have the scratch could buy the home. That's entirely different from a no-down-payment mortgage.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

Unfortunately for your idiotic theories, none of the loans that ADDI was involved with are necessarily defined as "sub-prime" since a down payment was made.

 

[Meister]

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

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
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Lets see the Hopey Changey One go after his good buddies over at GE. Until then,all his "Get the Evil Rich People" rhetoric is just plain BULLSHIT! Jeffrey Immelt his "Jobs Czar?" WTF? This stuff is actually laughable. Just more Community Organizer divide & conquer shit in the end. I guess we'll see if the People buy that shit again in 2012.

 

[edthecynic]

Only the liberal drones swallow the theory that Bush caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) is what changed the rules to allow no down payment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into.

Even your MessiahRushie admits the subprime problem first surfaced in 2004, following that new Bush law.

THE ADDI did not force banks to grant loans to anyone they didn't want to loan to. It provided the downpayment so that people who didn't have the scratch could buy the home. That's entirely different from a no-down-payment mortgage.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

Unfortunately for your idiotic theories, none of the loans that ADDI was involved with are necessarily defined as "sub-prime" since a down payment was made.

Really, don't you CON$ think you are milking that perpetual dumb act just a little too much????

And sub prime loans have to do with the interest rate, not the down payment anyway!!!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Jeffrey Immelt. That's all you need to know. This stuff is just old & sad Community Organizer Class Warfare Bullshit. Let me know when the Hopey Changey One declares War on his good buddies over at GE. I'll believe that when i see it.

 

[Meister]

Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) is what changed the rules to allow no down payment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into.

Even your MessiahRushie admits the subprime problem first surfaced in 2004, following that new Bush law.

THE ADDI did not force banks to grant loans to anyone they didn't want to loan to. It provided the downpayment so that people who didn't have the scratch could buy the home. That's entirely different from a no-down-payment mortgage.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

Unfortunately for your idiotic theories, none of the loans that ADDI was involved with are necessarily defined as "sub-prime" since a down payment was made.

Really, don't you CON$ think you are milking that perpetual dumb act just a little too much????

And sub prime loans have to do with the interest rate, not the down payment anyway!!!

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