tax breaks for the rich vs cuts for the people

[hipeter924]

How about corporate subsidies and the bailout vs the people? Because that is really what is blowing the budget, all the interest groups sucking off the government teat.

 

[DiamondDave]

If the Liberal Democrats feel the tax system is unfair by all means let them handover more of THEIR money to the government to fund the liberal programs that they hold so dearly.

In fact they should put up or just shut up.

I like this idea too. We just add a line to tax forms when it's time to do tax returns. The Federal Government Donation line. You're to right in an amount you like. If you feel government just doesn't have enough money and has to have more, knock yourself and give them more then what you owe in taxes. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would give more than they owe since they feel it's so important right?

How about we just elect officials who represent our views?

How about we elect officials who follow the constitution and not the 'popular whim' of the 'majority' inherently?

 

[ClosedCaption]

How about we drain the swamp and start out with a whole new tax system. Then we can make square wheels more effecient and dance through the lollipop fields.

Ugh, there are other solutions besides the "destroy and rebuild" scenarios that we know will not happen

 

[Big Fitz]

The rich are people too...

Not according to the left. They're food... hosts for them to be parasites on till they die, then a new host will come about for the parasitic left to glom onto.

I'm asking what sacrifice the Rich should make towards balancing the budget,

since to balance the budget, sacrifices MUST be made.

So far the answer, from conservatives here, via silence, is NONE.

Are you in agreement? Do you believe the Rich should be exempted from sacrifice needed to balance the budget?

Should all of that sacrifice fall on the non-Rich?

So paying over 70% of all taxes paid isn't enough? Figures.

That's why leftists are parasites. Grow government, take more from the individuals who earn and make the country work. Give to other poor parasites to help keep their power because they outnumber the rich.

Should the Rich pay their 'fair share'? Shit. They're paying MORE than their 'fair share'. How about the Poor finally pony up THEIR 'fair share', hmmmm? End the wealth redistribution and force them to pay a pittance. 10% maybe. Let's end 'Second Christmas' that currently is on every April 15th.

Won't this country benefit more by forcing these people to earn more money to survive, and tax it, just like the middle and upper class currently do?

Your paradigm is upside down. The rich already do more than they should.

And BTW, where's the sacrifice in government? You know, the ones CAUSING this crisis? Where is THEIR sacrifice?

 

[ClosedCaption]

There is only one problem with your "poor takes from the rich" storyline

It's that the Rich have been getting more and more from the middle class. As long as you ignore that your story makes sense.

BTW you cant force people to make more money and then tax it.

So, I'm wondering what is the GOP asking the rich to sacrifice in this time of dire need?

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm asking what sacrifice the Rich should make towards balancing the budget,

since to balance the budget, sacrifices MUST be made.

So far the answer, from conservatives here, via silence, is NONE.

Are you in agreement? Do you believe the Rich should be exempted from sacrifice needed to balance the budget?

Should all of that sacrifice fall on the non-Rich?

They shouldn't have to make any sacrifice to balance the budget. No one should, regardless of income level. The people didn't engage in this runaway spending. Congress did that. It's their mess to fix and they have no right to make anyone pay for it.

The big ticket items necessary to balance the budget are:

Cut Medicaid

Cut Medicare

Cut Social Security

Cut the Military Budget.

Now how in the world can you accomplish those without anyone having to make a sacrifice?

When government cuts those things, we can talk about increased sacrifice on the rich and corporations.

When in a hole, first, stop digging.

 

[ClosedCaption]

They shouldn't have to make any sacrifice to balance the budget. No one should, regardless of income level. The people didn't engage in this runaway spending. Congress did that. It's their mess to fix and they have no right to make anyone pay for it.

The big ticket items necessary to balance the budget are:

Cut Medicaid

Cut Medicare

Cut Social Security

Cut the Military Budget.

Now how in the world can you accomplish those without anyone having to make a sacrifice?

When government cuts those things, we can talk about increased sacrifice on the rich and corporations.

When in a hole, first, stop digging.

Why do you want the 99% of the population to sacrifice BEFORE CONSIDERING sacrifice coming from the 1%? Why not the other way around?

 

[Big Fitz]

There is only one problem with your "poor takes from the rich" storyline

It's that the Rich have been getting more and more from the middle class. As long as you ignore that your story makes sense.

BTW you cant force people to make more money and then tax it.

So, I'm wondering what is the GOP asking the rich to sacrifice in this time of dire need?

And more and more middle class became rich till the housing bubble.

Now, they dropped back to an overtaxed middle class while the poor skate on by when they get back more than they pay in.

 

[Big Fitz]

The big ticket items necessary to balance the budget are:

Cut Medicaid

Cut Medicare

Cut Social Security

Cut the Military Budget.

Now how in the world can you accomplish those without anyone having to make a sacrifice?

When government cuts those things, we can talk about increased sacrifice on the rich and corporations.

When in a hole, first, stop digging.

Why do you want the 99% of the population to sacrifice BEFORE CONSIDERING sacrifice coming from the 1%? Why not the other way around?

The top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of the tax burden.

How is this fair?

Why do the bottom 60% of all income earners get ALL or MORE THAN ALL their taxes back?

How is THIS fair?

 

[ClosedCaption]

When government cuts those things, we can talk about increased sacrifice on the rich and corporations.

When in a hole, first, stop digging.

Why do you want the 99% of the population to sacrifice BEFORE CONSIDERING sacrifice coming from the 1%? Why not the other way around?

The top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of the tax burden.

How is this fair?

Why do the bottom 60% of all income earners get ALL or MORE THAN ALL their taxes back?

How is THIS fair?

Here lets play a game....I'll answer your questions, then you answer mine

The top 1% own more than 90% of all the wealth in america...So no, they arent being taxed fairly. Then you forget that the rich have tax loopholes that the middle class dont. So no, its not fair at all.

So again, Why do you want to slash programs that go to 99% of the population BEFORE EVEN CONSIDERING asking for sacrifice from the top 1%? What you are saying is cut everyone to the bone and MAYBE, we'll get around to the rich sacrificing one red cent only after that...?

 

[kaz]

The Question remains largely unanswered.

If there must be sacrifice to balance the budget, what do conservatives want the Rich to sacrifice?

Or should the sacrifice fall on everyone but the Rich?

Maybe it's not being answered because it's a stupid question. We are taxing too much, we are spending too much. The bottom half pay virtually no taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of them.

What you are really asking is, do you want the "rest" to have jobs or get government checks and "services." Because whether or not you get the chance to screw the rich bastards you despise or not for having more money then you do, they create the jobs and taxing them more means you have more poor to give precious government benefits to. You can go with the typical liberal "no it's not," or you can go the logical route to prove what I say is wrong and disprove the entire field of economics in your next post.

 

[Big Fitz]

The top 1% own more than 90% of all the wealth in america...So no, they arent being taxed fairly. Then you forget that the rich have tax loopholes that the middle class dont. So no, its not fair at all.

Then I want you to define 'fair'. Next I want you to tell me who should decide what is 'fair'?

So again, Why do you want to slash programs that go to 99% of the population BEFORE EVEN CONSIDERING asking for sacrifice from the top 1%? What you are saying is cut everyone to the bone and MAYBE, we'll get around to the rich sacrificing one red cent only after that...?

Because it is a fact that these programs are not constitutional in most cases for one. For another, waste, unnecessary duplication, graft and abuse is rampant in 90% of these programs. Thirdly, we cannot afford them even if we increased the tax rate to 100%. Therefore, government must cut all this first, starting with the unconstitutional social programs then get down to the waste, fraud and abuse of the constitutional programs.

 

[Jarhead]

Why do you want the 99% of the population to sacrifice BEFORE CONSIDERING sacrifice coming from the 1%? Why not the other way around?

The top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of the tax burden.

How is this fair?

Why do the bottom 60% of all income earners get ALL or MORE THAN ALL their taxes back?

How is THIS fair?

Here lets play a game....I'll answer your questions, then you answer mine

The top 1% own more than 90% of all the wealth in america...So no, they arent being taxed fairly. Then you forget that the rich have tax loopholes that the middle class dont. So no, its not fair at all.

So again, Why do you want to slash programs that go to 99% of the population BEFORE EVEN CONSIDERING asking for sacrifice from the top 1%? What you are saying is cut everyone to the bone and MAYBE, we'll get around to the rich sacrificing one red cent only after that...?

First....lets address a left wing talking point with no basis that you used.

The rich do not have tax loopholes that the middle class dont....not sure why you so emphaitcally stated that.

The rich apply themselves so they can capitalize on write offs...but those write offs are available to everyone...if they opt to go in that direction.

For example....when I was first getting started in real life I was presented with a dilemma of sorts....I could continue paying rent and enjoy my free time with entertainment that cost me money...or I could spend a year saving every penny I can so I can afford a down payment on a house. I opted for the latter....and had a year of working and TV for entertainment.....I saved the required 10% and bought the house and AFTER MY TAX AND INTEREST write off, my net annual cost of my mortgage and RE taxes was less than my rent was.

That "loophole" that you mistakenly refer to it as, was available to all of us...I found a way to use it.

Now...second item that I laugh at...you admit that the top 1% do not use the programs but you want them to be the ones to sacrifice more for those programs. Do you not see the irony?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Question remains largely unanswered.

If there must be sacrifice to balance the budget, what do conservatives want the Rich to sacrifice?

Or should the sacrifice fall on everyone but the Rich?

Maybe it's not being answered because it's a stupid question. We are taxing too much, we are spending too much. The bottom half pay virtually no taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of them.

What you are really asking is, do you want the "rest" to have jobs or get government checks and "services." Because whether or not you get the chance to screw the rich bastards you despise or not for having more money then you do, they create the jobs and taxing them more means you have more poor to give precious government benefits to. You can go with the typical liberal "no it's not," or you can go the logical route to prove what I say is wrong and disprove the entire field of economics in your next post.

Jeezus...You talk like my ex girl. Everything is emotional adjectives to make a point. No one hates the rich, there are rich liberals so according to you they hate themselves which is stupid as hell.

Second, they've had the tax breaks for 10 years. If tax breaks have anything to do with job creation like you are claiming. Where are the jobs?

Ill enjoy watching you explain how tax cuts dont really equal job creation and other factors come into play and essentially destroying your previous post

 

[Jarhead]

The Question remains largely unanswered.

If there must be sacrifice to balance the budget, what do conservatives want the Rich to sacrifice?

Or should the sacrifice fall on everyone but the Rich?

Maybe it's not being answered because it's a stupid question. We are taxing too much, we are spending too much. The bottom half pay virtually no taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of them.

What you are really asking is, do you want the "rest" to have jobs or get government checks and "services." Because whether or not you get the chance to screw the rich bastards you despise or not for having more money then you do, they create the jobs and taxing them more means you have more poor to give precious government benefits to. You can go with the typical liberal "no it's not," or you can go the logical route to prove what I say is wrong and disprove the entire field of economics in your next post.

Jeezus...You talk like my ex girl. Everything is emotional adjectives to make a point. No one hates the rich, there are rich liberals so according to you they hate themselves which is stupid as hell.

Second, they've had the tax breaks for 10 years. If tax breaks have anything to do with job creation like you are claiming. Where are the jobs?

Ill enjoy watching you explain how tax cuts dont really equal job creation and other factors come into play and essentially destroying your previous post

I have answered the question many times on here and I laugh at how no one on the left ever wish to respond...

So lets see if you do....

There were many more jobs created during the tax cut years than you are made aware of by the media...as if they analyzed what took place as I did...and I had to as it is my job to.....they would have recognized the following.....

1) There were a glut of unemployed that hit the streets following the dot com bubble burst.
2) there was a dramatic change in office technology in the early 2000's including individual voicemail and advanced graphics programs cutting back the need for support personnel in offices...such as receptionists and word processing staff.
3) there was a dramatic change in printing technology making advanced printing operations more automated and less expensive for mid sized companies....cutting back the need for personnel such as collaters and "copy clerks"
4) there was a a boom of the internet and the cpability of all to use boolean searches leading to a drastic reduction for the need of research department personnel....some in law major NYC law firms were reduced from over 100 to as few as 2
5) there was a dramatic increase in "internship" college programs that were deemed as good "training opportunities" and pushed on ALL companies by colleges and government.
6) There was your typical INCREASE in of age people entering the workforce...

Yet.....

Unemployment did NOT increase until we hit the expected recession that comes every 6-8 years.

Truth is, there was vaild reason to see unemployment increase based on all the reasons stated above....but it didnt.

There were millions of jobs created...companies grew...even though technology gave them reason not to.

Make sense?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Question remains largely unanswered.

If there must be sacrifice to balance the budget, what do conservatives want the Rich to sacrifice?

Or should the sacrifice fall on everyone but the Rich?

Maybe it's not being answered because it's a stupid question. We are taxing too much, we are spending too much. The bottom half pay virtually no taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of them.

What you are really asking is, do you want the "rest" to have jobs or get government checks and "services." Because whether or not you get the chance to screw the rich bastards you despise or not for having more money then you do, they create the jobs and taxing them more means you have more poor to give precious government benefits to. You can go with the typical liberal "no it's not," or you can go the logical route to prove what I say is wrong and disprove the entire field of economics in your next post.

It's funny the lengths the Right here will go to avoid answering the question.

Let me ask it again.

We cannot balance the budget without sacrifice.

What should the Rich sacrifice?

Let me add...

...if the Rich should be exempt from sacrificing, who shouldn't be? Who should the sacrifice be borne by?

Specifically.

Let me also add...

What should I have to sacrifice? I'm not rich; I make about 50 grand a year. My taxes are relatively high because I'm single no dependents.

What should I have to sacrifice that the Rich shouldn't?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not according to the left. They're food... hosts for them to be parasites on till they die, then a new host will come about for the parasitic left to glom onto.

I'm asking what sacrifice the Rich should make towards balancing the budget,

since to balance the budget, sacrifices MUST be made.

So far the answer, from conservatives here, via silence, is NONE.

Are you in agreement? Do you believe the Rich should be exempted from sacrifice needed to balance the budget?

Should all of that sacrifice fall on the non-Rich?

So paying over 70% of all taxes paid isn't enough? Figures.

That's why leftists are parasites. Grow government, take more from the individuals who earn and make the country work. Give to other poor parasites to help keep their power because they outnumber the rich.

Should the Rich pay their 'fair share'? Shit. They're paying MORE than their 'fair share'. How about the Poor finally pony up THEIR 'fair share', hmmmm? End the wealth redistribution and force them to pay a pittance. 10% maybe. Let's end 'Second Christmas' that currently is on every April 15th.

Won't this country benefit more by forcing these people to earn more money to survive, and tax it, just like the middle and upper class currently do?

Your paradigm is upside down. The rich already do more than they should.

And BTW, where's the sacrifice in government? You know, the ones CAUSING this crisis? Where is THEIR sacrifice?

Ok, there's one more rightwing vote for the Rich being exempt from sharing the sacrifice needed to balance the budget. I think that sentiment on the Right is almost unanimous.

Sounds like the Right is allied with the Rich class, in warfare against the un-Rich class. Isn't there a name for war based on class? Now, what would that be....hmmm...

 

[Jarhead]

The Question remains largely unanswered.

If there must be sacrifice to balance the budget, what do conservatives want the Rich to sacrifice?

Or should the sacrifice fall on everyone but the Rich?

Maybe it's not being answered because it's a stupid question. We are taxing too much, we are spending too much. The bottom half pay virtually no taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of them.

What you are really asking is, do you want the "rest" to have jobs or get government checks and "services." Because whether or not you get the chance to screw the rich bastards you despise or not for having more money then you do, they create the jobs and taxing them more means you have more poor to give precious government benefits to. You can go with the typical liberal "no it's not," or you can go the logical route to prove what I say is wrong and disprove the entire field of economics in your next post.

It's funny the lengths the Right here will go to avoid answering the question.

Let me ask it again.

We cannot balance the budget without sacrifice.

What should the Rich sacrifice?

Let me add...

...if the Rich should be exempt from sacrificing, who shouldn't be? Who should the sacrifice be borne by?

Specifically.

Let me also add...

What should I have to sacrifice? I'm not rich; I make about 50 grand a year. My taxes are relatively high because I'm single no dependents.

What should I have to sacrifice that the Rich shouldn't?

YOU are the one asking for people (the rich) to scarifice.

No one else is.

The rest of us are saying, if you want to balance the budget, stop the spending...stop saying government can be there to suppoort the people...

Why?

Becuase they cant be there to support the people. They dont have the money to do so.
Go back to what you are supposed to do....

Stop paying for things like Cowboy Poetry.....and PBS that makes more than m0ost companies in America.....
stop promising people that if they have to dig hard to be comfortable, not to worry...government can make you comfortable..

Start telling people...."you are the one that gambled with an ARM...now do what you gotta do to dig out of the hole you created for yourself...."....and "you are the one who hoped your money will make money for you in the market....do what you gotta do to land on your feet again".....and...."you are the one who was too lazy to read the fine print and signed anyway....do what you gotta do to land on your feet again".....and...."you are the one who lied about your income on that NINJA loan...do what you gotta do to land on your feet again....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Go away.

You honestly believe that the only reason Bill Gates and Paul Allen built Microsoft is because of tax shelters???

LOL, that is mentally retarded.

Actually a valid point. While the book rate was at 70% I wonder what the actual % paid in taxes was back then compared to now, for various tax types. No one seems to discuss that.

It is more than a valid point.
It is the EXACT reason innovation was not stymied during the 70% tax rate years.
Anyone who was in business back then knows this.....and of course it is never discussed....it only hurts the liberal side of the debate.
And when it is boriught up? Well...first it is referred to as mentrally retarded by NY Carbineer....and then the lohgic is ignored.

Were Bill Gates and Paul Allen RICH in the 70's, when they were doing all this valuable innovation.

NO THEY WEREN"T, so the tax structure for the RICH didn't even apply to them. Which makes the original premise even more R E T A R D E D.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm asking what sacrifice the Rich should make towards balancing the budget,

since to balance the budget, sacrifices MUST be made.

So far the answer, from conservatives here, via silence, is NONE.

Are you in agreement? Do you believe the Rich should be exempted from sacrifice needed to balance the budget?

Should all of that sacrifice fall on the non-Rich?

So paying over 70% of all taxes paid isn't enough? Figures.

That's why leftists are parasites. Grow government, take more from the individuals who earn and make the country work. Give to other poor parasites to help keep their power because they outnumber the rich.

Should the Rich pay their 'fair share'? Shit. They're paying MORE than their 'fair share'. How about the Poor finally pony up THEIR 'fair share', hmmmm? End the wealth redistribution and force them to pay a pittance. 10% maybe. Let's end 'Second Christmas' that currently is on every April 15th.

Won't this country benefit more by forcing these people to earn more money to survive, and tax it, just like the middle and upper class currently do?

Your paradigm is upside down. The rich already do more than they should.

And BTW, where's the sacrifice in government? You know, the ones CAUSING this crisis? Where is THEIR sacrifice?

Ok, there's one more rightwing vote for the Rich being exempt from sharing the sacrifice needed to balance the budget. I think that sentiment on the Right is almost unanimous.

Sounds like the Right is allied with the Rich class, in warfare against the un-Rich class. Isn't there a name for war based on class? Now, what would that be....hmmm...

I will tell you what...

Cut programs...

Whoever uses them are the ones who will sacrifice

Whoever doesnt, wont have to sacrifice...

Or are you saying that the ones who dont use them are the ones who should sacrifice?

Please explain....