Stopping class warfare

[Againsheila]

If conservatives and liberals are serious about tax fairness, creating jobs, reducing lobbyist influence in Washington, and growing the economy......then why do they not support getting rid of the current income tax code and replace it with a consumption tax?

Or are they serious at all?

Because the rich are less likely to pay a consumption tax. Food is exempt and they'll buy all their stuff overseas and find a way to get it here without paying duty.

 

[akelch]

If conservatives and liberals are serious about tax fairness, creating jobs, reducing lobbyist influence in Washington, and growing the economy......then why do they not support getting rid of the current income tax code and replace it with a consumption tax?

Or are they serious at all?

The problem with a consumption tax is that it is class warfare. When you have people who spend everything they have on day to day expenses, as opposed to the rich, who put a lot away, that is shifting the tax burden onto to the working class more than it already is.

It also hurts business, because people will be less inclined to buy thing.

I mean, come on, people, this ain't brain surgery. We had our greatest prosperity when the rich paid hefty taxes for the privilage of being rich.

Otherwise known as a regressive tax.

So your theory is that taxing something discourages people from doing it....then why are we taxing income and investing?
On the flip side...we are encouraging hiding income, illegally working (the underground economy), and hoarding money (not investing) with our current tax system.

Plus, what makes you think people will not spend money? The prices on goods and services will not go up, they will stay about the same.

 

[akelch]

If conservatives and liberals are serious about tax fairness, creating jobs, reducing lobbyist influence in Washington, and growing the economy......then why do they not support getting rid of the current income tax code and replace it with a consumption tax?

Or are they serious at all?

Because the rich are less likely to pay a consumption tax. Food is exempt and they'll buy all their stuff overseas and find a way to get it here without paying duty.

Food is not exempt and the prices of stuff will not change. So why would they buy overseas if they are not already doing so?

 

[JoeB131]

You have never a read a single book about economics, have you?

Explain why my employer pays me many times the minimum wage if it can simply hire whoever "they can get away with exploiting."

You really think that I believe for a moment that you have a productive job that pays you to post hateful bile on the internet?

You posted this bit of bile at 11:27 AM. Why are you stealing from your employer like this?

You can't answer the question, can you?

Oh, sorry, was that a serious question? I thought it was a typical whine from the right that after they've CRASHED THE FUCKING ECONOMY twice in one adminstration, that the rest of us just don't understand economics.

Yes, I've read economic books. Dr. Krugman was very enlightening in helping my twelve-step recovery from Republican Bullshit.

So I have to ask the question, why are you stealing from your employer posting here at 11:30-11:56 AM when you ought to be working?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I have seen how deep this class warfare has gotten and it makes me sad. We have stopped talking about what is best for the country and started talking about how to punish a few in the name of social justice. But this is not a solution....just a distraction.

How is making the rich pay their fair share a "distraction"?

The country had it's greatest prosperity when the workforce was mostly unionized and the wealthy paid a 93% top rate.

Seriously, fuck the rich. They'll be fine.

Define what you consider to be a "fair share"?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Show me a person that actually paid 93% and I'll agree with you.

Plus, I don't care about the rich, I care about the country and our economy.

Under the Fair Tax those "rich" will have to compete with one another to keep what they have. Thus, hire the best talent.

They'll do nothing of the sort. They'll hire who they think they can get away with exploiting.

Sorry, man, Supply Side doesn't work, nor does the magic power of Capitalism.

We were much more prosperous when they paid top marginal rates, and we invested that money in schools and roads instead of Dressage Ponies and Car Elevators.

In that time you talk about we had less regulation.......so you can make a argument that less regulation made us more prosperous. Thus, getting rid of 75,000 pages of the tax code and replacing it with Fair Tax which is only 33 pages would make us more prosperous.

Understand that for these morons, it has nothing to do with prosperity, or what is best for this nation. For them, it's all about "fairness" and punishing everyone who has more than the morons think someone else should be allowed to have.

 

[JoeB131]

I have seen how deep this class warfare has gotten and it makes me sad. We have stopped talking about what is best for the country and started talking about how to punish a few in the name of social justice. But this is not a solution....just a distraction.

How is making the rich pay their fair share a "distraction"?

The country had it's greatest prosperity when the workforce was mostly unionized and the wealthy paid a 93% top rate.

Seriously, fuck the rich. They'll be fine.

Define what you consider to be a "fair share"?

Pre-Reagan.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You really think that I believe for a moment that you have a productive job that pays you to post hateful bile on the internet?

You posted this bit of bile at 11:27 AM. Why are you stealing from your employer like this?

You can't answer the question, can you?

Oh, sorry, was that a serious question? I thought it was a typical whine from the right that after they've CRASHED THE FUCKING ECONOMY twice in one adminstration, that the rest of us just don't understand economics.

Yes, I've read economic books. Dr. Krugman was very enlightening in helping my twelve-step recovery from Republican Bullshit.

So I have to ask the question, why are you stealing from your employer posting here at 11:30-11:56 AM when you ought to be working?

You do realize that not everyone works the same schedule as you?

 

[gallantwarrior]

How is making the rich pay their fair share a "distraction"?

The country had it's greatest prosperity when the workforce was mostly unionized and the wealthy paid a 93% top rate.

Seriously, fuck the rich. They'll be fine.

Define what you consider to be a "fair share"?

Pre-Reagan.

Pre-Reagan what? Provide some description (preferably in your own words) of what YOU consider to be a "fair share"? Percentages? Pennies on the dollar?

 

[JoeB131]

Define what you consider to be a "fair share"?

Pre-Reagan.

Pre-Reagan what? Provide some description (preferably in your own words) of what YOU consider to be a "fair share"? Percentages? Pennies on the dollar?

Pre-Reagan.

WHen we used to have balanced budgets or small deficits.

Before Reagan, it took 39 presidents to run up a Trillion dollars in debt. Then Reagan decided those poor rich people were just paying waaay to much in taxes, and he ran up a trillion dollars in new debt in one term.

 

[akelch]

Pre-Reagan.

Pre-Reagan what? Provide some description (preferably in your own words) of what YOU consider to be a "fair share"? Percentages? Pennies on the dollar?

Pre-Reagan.

WHen we used to have balanced budgets or small deficits.

Before Reagan, it took 39 presidents to run up a Trillion dollars in debt. Then Reagan decided those poor rich people were just paying waaay to much in taxes, and he ran up a trillion dollars in new debt in one term.

But tax revenue went up every year between 1980 and 1988.

1980 it was $880 billion.
1988 it was $1,600 billion

Almost doubling it in 10 years.

So how does that have anything to do with the deficit and balanced budgets?

 

[akelch]

I do agree we should have balanced budgets but it is not a revenue problem.

 

[ilia25]

Pre-Reagan what? Provide some description (preferably in your own words) of what YOU consider to be a "fair share"? Percentages? Pennies on the dollar?

Pre-Reagan.

WHen we used to have balanced budgets or small deficits.

Before Reagan, it took 39 presidents to run up a Trillion dollars in debt. Then Reagan decided those poor rich people were just paying waaay to much in taxes, and he ran up a trillion dollars in new debt in one term.

But tax revenue went up every year between 1980 and 1988.

1980 it was $880 billion.
1988 it was $1,600 billion

Almost doubling it in 10 years.

So how does that have anything to do with the deficit and balanced budgets?

That revenue growth was not fast enough to keep up with spending -- because of the tax cuts.

You cannot say that it is a spending problem unless you you can tell exactly what spending we can live without. That is what Republicans do -- keep calling for spending cuts while refusing to specify were exactly those savings should come from.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Pre-Reagan.

WHen we used to have balanced budgets or small deficits.

Before Reagan, it took 39 presidents to run up a Trillion dollars in debt. Then Reagan decided those poor rich people were just paying waaay to much in taxes, and he ran up a trillion dollars in new debt in one term.

But tax revenue went up every year between 1980 and 1988.

1980 it was $880 billion.
1988 it was $1,600 billion

Almost doubling it in 10 years.

So how does that have anything to do with the deficit and balanced budgets?

That revenue growth was not fast enough to keep up with spending -- because of the tax cuts.

You cannot say that it is a spending problem unless you you can tell exactly what spending we can live without. That is what Republicans do -- keep calling for spending cuts while refusing to specify were exactly those savings should come from.

If we could process all the shit generated by every man, woman, and child in this country into gold, we could still not generate enough revenue to cover the profligate government waste.

 

[akelch]

Pre-Reagan.

WHen we used to have balanced budgets or small deficits.

Before Reagan, it took 39 presidents to run up a Trillion dollars in debt. Then Reagan decided those poor rich people were just paying waaay to much in taxes, and he ran up a trillion dollars in new debt in one term.

But tax revenue went up every year between 1980 and 1988.

1980 it was $880 billion.
1988 it was $1,600 billion

Almost doubling it in 10 years.

So how does that have anything to do with the deficit and balanced budgets?

That revenue growth was not fast enough to keep up with spending -- because of the tax cuts.

You cannot say that it is a spending problem unless you you can tell exactly what spending we can live without. That is what Republicans do -- keep calling for spending cuts while refusing to specify were exactly those savings should come from.

2 seconds searching...here is one plan.
Explainer: What Ron Paul's Trillion-Dollar Spending Cuts Axe (and What They Don't) - WNYC

Plus there is the Ryan Budget and many others.

 

[Katzndogz]

There's no stopping class warfare until it ends in open warfare. The classification of rich will be redefined as many times as necessary to keep class warfare going.

Howard Dean defines everyone as rich and we should all be taxed. He's only telling the truth.

Howard Dean: "The Truth Is Everybody Needs To Pay More Taxes, Not Just The Rich" | RealClearPolitics

 

[gallantwarrior]

But tax revenue went up every year between 1980 and 1988.

1980 it was $880 billion.
1988 it was $1,600 billion

Almost doubling it in 10 years.

So how does that have anything to do with the deficit and balanced budgets?

That revenue growth was not fast enough to keep up with spending -- because of the tax cuts.

You cannot say that it is a spending problem unless you you can tell exactly what spending we can live without. That is what Republicans do -- keep calling for spending cuts while refusing to specify were exactly those savings should come from.

2 seconds searching...here is one plan.
Explainer: What Ron Paul's Trillion-Dollar Spending Cuts Axe (and What They Don't) - WNYC

Plus there is the Ryan Budget and many others.

That seems quite reasonable and it addresses some of the progressive's sacred cows, like ending foreign wars.

 

[ba1614]

I do agree we should have balanced budgets but it is not a revenue problem.

Heck, I'd settle for even a budget that we haven't had for 4yrs

 

[ilia25]

But tax revenue went up every year between 1980 and 1988.

1980 it was $880 billion.
1988 it was $1,600 billion

Almost doubling it in 10 years.

So how does that have anything to do with the deficit and balanced budgets?

That revenue growth was not fast enough to keep up with spending -- because of the tax cuts.

You cannot say that it is a spending problem unless you you can tell exactly what spending we can live without. That is what Republicans do -- keep calling for spending cuts while refusing to specify were exactly those savings should come from.

2 seconds searching...here is one plan.
Explainer: What Ron Paul's Trillion-Dollar Spending Cuts Axe (and What They Don't) - WNYC

Plus there is the Ryan Budget and many others.

Have you actually read that article? The only specific saving in there are coming from cutting the President's salary -- and that is it.

Ron Paul puts up a lengthy list of the departments he wants to abolish, but he offers no numbers on how much saving those would produce. His goal is cutting spending by 1T, but he offers no plan that gets us there.

The same is true for Ryan's budget -- it's a fraud.

The truth is that 90% of the govt. spending goes to defence and entitlement programs for elderly, disabled and those working low paying jobs. You cannot cut a trillion w/o affecting those -- and that is why there is no specifics.

 

[akelch]

That revenue growth was not fast enough to keep up with spending -- because of the tax cuts.

You cannot say that it is a spending problem unless you you can tell exactly what spending we can live without. That is what Republicans do -- keep calling for spending cuts while refusing to specify were exactly those savings should come from.

2 seconds searching...here is one plan.
Explainer: What Ron Paul's Trillion-Dollar Spending Cuts Axe (and What They Don't) - WNYC

Plus there is the Ryan Budget and many others.

Have you actually read that article? The only specific saving in there are coming from cutting the President's salary -- and that is it.

Ron Paul puts up a lengthy list of the departments he wants to abolish, but he offers no numbers on how much saving those would produce. His goal is cutting spending by 1T, but he offers no plan that gets us there.

The same is true for Ryan's budget -- it's a fraud.

The truth is that 90% of the govt. spending goes to defence and entitlement programs for elderly, disabled and those working low paying jobs. You cannot cut a trillion w/o affecting those -- and that is why there is no specifics.

Ron Paul's plan is all about cutting the military budget. If you want to find out the exact numbers go look for them then say it doesn't add up to 1 Trillion.

But it is much more detailed then any plan I have seen from the Democrats and most of the other Republicans.

He at least has a plan that comes close to balancing the budget.