Degenerate's Tax the Rich Fixation

[tyroneweaver]

Maybe the wealthy should just adopt all neo-communist progressives.......

Seems they all need a sugar daddy to depend on.......

So when Mitt told people to just borrow money from their parents who was he talking to?

probably people who barrow money and think that the tax payers will fllip the bill.
Its easy to barrow money but a lot harder to pay it back

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But I thought deficits didn't matter.

Once again you're trying to have it both ways.

I didn't say deficits didn't matter.

They didn't when you went all in on the stimulus.

Deficits matter less than preventing economy catastrophe.

 

[Koios]

More like a laughable joke of a a balanced budget initiative.

Then why worry about it? Seems a bit of folly.

Did i say I was worried about it? What I'm trying to find out is why this is the biggest initiative you people can come up with to balance a budget. It's a laughable, and frankly, a disgusting insult to Americans.

If you would all, including the president, just admit that this is about punishing people and nothing more, you would at least be honest. Instead, you've been saying this bullshit for over four years and it amounts to less than a drop in the bucket. Considering all of the spending increases being proposed simultaneously.

Are you guys really this bad at math, or is this really a joke?

You seem all up in arms against it. Why so, if it's a joke?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Maybe the wealthy should just adopt all neo-communist progressives.......

Seems they all need a sugar daddy to depend on.......

So when Mitt told people to just borrow money from their parents who was he talking to?

probably people who barrow money and think that the tax payers will fllip the bill.
Its easy to barrow money but a lot harder to pay it back

Are you talking about transporting money in a wheel barrow?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Raising taxes on the rich was the cornerstone of President Obama’s reelection campaign. “If we’re serious about reducing the deficit,” Obama told a rally in Columbus, Ohio, on election day, “we’ve got to ask the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates they paid when Bill Clinton was in office.”

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney....

How much deficit reduction would Obama

Idea! Let's be fair, every dollar, dime and penny donated to a SuperPAC, Candidate, Party or cause must be matched by the donor to a fund reducing the national debt.

Yeah that's fair.

its fair if unions don't get an exemption. which they will

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's like trying to do budget prep in a remedial math class.

We should pay 2 dollars a month to the 100,000 dollar credit card bill @ 18% APR to pay it off in ~4,200 years.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I didn't say deficits didn't matter.

They didn't when you went all in on the stimulus.

Deficits matter less than preventing economy catastrophe.

So is the current deficit an economic catastrophe? If not then why worry about the pittance that raising taxes on those "millionaires" who make 250K a year will bring in?

 

[Koios]

Meanwhile, TASB, the buzz phrase is "deficit reduction." It does that, which no one can argue.

Plus it's just a bit of BS, since it only calulates income from Labor, and the exceptionally well-off earn most of theirs from Capital. Thus, LTCGs need to be taxed as before, IMO.

Lastly, it ain't a flat economy, and the calulation is based upon it being flat. The bigger help, as always with revenue, is growth in the economy. That lowers debt and deficit as percentage of GDP, while growing revenue across the income spectrum. And we know from history, lower rates impede growth, and that growth has always been more robust when tax rates on upper brackets are higher.

It'll do way more than they say.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's like trying to do budget prep in a remedial math class.

We should pay 2 dollars a month to the 100,000 dollar credit card bill @ 18% APR to pay it off in ~4,200 years.

The U.S. doesn't pay 18% APR you idiot.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Then why worry about it? Seems a bit of folly.

Did i say I was worried about it? What I'm trying to find out is why this is the biggest initiative you people can come up with to balance a budget. It's a laughable, and frankly, a disgusting insult to Americans.

If you would all, including the president, just admit that this is about punishing people and nothing more, you would at least be honest. Instead, you've been saying this bullshit for over four years and it amounts to less than a drop in the bucket. Considering all of the spending increases being proposed simultaneously.

Are you guys really this bad at math, or is this really a joke?

You seem all up in arms against it. Why so, if it's a joke?

In other words you can not support the idea you find to be so important. Other than to point out that I shouldn't be against something that doesn't work, will do less than nothing and is the ONLY policy being advocated by the regime to bring down deficits.

I'm not up in arms over anythig, dullard. What Im trying to find out is WHY you turds think this is such a good idea when it does nothing. But you just dont know. You just want to punish someone because the community organizer got you all out into the street with pitchforks over it.

What a bunch of plebs.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They didn't when you went all in on the stimulus.

Deficits matter less than preventing economy catastrophe.

So is the current deficit an economic catastrophe? If not then why worry about the pittance that raising taxes on those "millionaires" who make 250K a year will bring in?

No.

Its not a pittance. By 2014 it will be close to 1/3 of the deficit.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Meanwhile, TASB, the buzz phrase is "deficit reduction." It does that, which no one can argue.

Plus it's just a bit of BS, since it only calulates income from Labor, and the exceptionally well-off earn most of theirs from Capital. Thus, LTCGs need to be taxed as before, IMO.

Lastly, it ain't a flat economy, and the calulation is based upon it being flat. The bigger help, as always with revenue, is growth in the economy. That lowers debt and deficit as percentage of GDP, while growing revenue across the income spectrum. And we know from history, lower rates impede growth, and that growth has always been more robust when tax rates on upper brackets are higher.

It'll do way more than they say.

 

[martybegan]

Deficits matter less than preventing economy catastrophe.

So is the current deficit an economic catastrophe? If not then why worry about the pittance that raising taxes on those "millionaires" who make 250K a year will bring in?

No.

Its not a pittance. By 2014 it will be close to 1/3 of the deficit.

using assumed rates of economic growth. Just like state pensions rely on pie in the sky estimates for a rate of return to keep them solvent, your value requires an economic boom occuring to raise revenues, not the tax increase.

More fluff from the kings of fluff, progressive politicians.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's like trying to do budget prep in a remedial math class.

We should pay 2 dollars a month to the 100,000 dollar credit card bill @ 18% APR to pay it off in ~4,200 years.

The U.S. doesn't pay 18% APR you idiot.

No but can't you see than a couple percent interest on 16 trillion is a lot more than 18% on 100K

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Holy hell. This is entertaining to watch, even if it's sad.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Deficits matter less than preventing economy catastrophe.

So is the current deficit an economic catastrophe? If not then why worry about the pittance that raising taxes on those "millionaires" who make 250K a year will bring in?

No.

Its not a pittance. By 2014 it will be close to 1/3 of the deficit.

Please list all the assumptions that go along with that statement.

I'll see you in a week or so after you're done.

 

[Koios]

Meanwhile, TASB, the buzz phrase is "deficit reduction." It does that, which no one can argue.

Plus it's just a bit of BS, since it only calulates income from Labor, and the exceptionally well-off earn most of theirs from Capital. Thus, LTCGs need to be taxed as before, IMO.

Lastly, it ain't a flat economy, and the calulation is based upon it being flat. The bigger help, as always with revenue, is growth in the economy. That lowers debt and deficit as percentage of GDP, while growing revenue across the income spectrum. And we know from history, lower rates impede growth, and that growth has always been more robust when tax rates on upper brackets are higher.

It'll do way more than they say.

Touche

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's like trying to do budget prep in a remedial math class.

We should pay 2 dollars a month to the 100,000 dollar credit card bill @ 18% APR to pay it off in ~4,200 years.

The U.S. doesn't pay 18% APR you idiot.

No but can't you see than a couple percent interest on 16 trillion is a lot more than 18% on 100K

You don't really expect....

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Why take that money from the sources just to spend it on unsustainable govt policies that will require bailing out again and again?

Why not BORROW money from sources to invest in plans that WILL pay the taxpayers back over time, and generate sustainable income to pay back the loans and eventually get out of this debt problem. For example, financing the restructuring of prison systems into working schools, hospitals, detention and treatment centers that are funded by restitution for crime and corruption as paid by the actual wrongdoers, instead of charging taxpayers two or three times over for the same crimes and costs incurred by them. Then let the lenders own shares in the property and programs, while the debts are paid back, so there is collateral on the loans.

If the govt's proposed policies are poorly planned and will not generate payback, the investors will not lend money into them. The plans have to work, and the loans must be reasonable, or else other citizens could chip in and buy out shares in these plans if the large investors won't. so there could be competition to lend the money at the best rates, instead of grabbing income from people and then blowing this on programs that don't solve the problems that are otherwise escalating the debts.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's like trying to do budget prep in a remedial math class.

We should pay 2 dollars a month to the 100,000 dollar credit card bill @ 18% APR to pay it off in ~4,200 years.

The U.S. doesn't pay 18% APR you idiot.

No but can't you see than a couple percent interest on 16 trillion is a lot more than 18% on 100K

And 1.6 T over 10 years is a lot more than 2 dollars a month, what's your fucking point?