Tax the rich!!!!!!!!

[Votto]

The Bush Tax Cuts expiring is just one piece of the puzzle as well as ending the wars, curtailing military spending, closing tax loopholes and re-examining social programs all of which Obama ran on for re-election. It actually would be pretty easy to balance the budget, it's just a question of who has the balls to do it.

And there's no point talking to Vel.

What peice of the puzzle would it be? In short, how much revenue would letting the taxes expire generate?

 

[BallsBrunswick]

What peice of the puzzle would it be? In short, how much revenue would letting the taxes expire generate?

Nearly one trillion dollars over the next decade.

Bush-Era Tax Cuts Will Cost U.S. Nearly $1 Trillion Over Next Decade [GRAPHIC]

 

[AVG-JOE]

Would you support Marxism? If not, then how would this be done?

Marxism, Schmarxism! Can the labels and give me your IDEAS.

My quesiton was, what is your idea?

My ideas are for limited government and would be scoffed at as extremist. I'm simply trying to see what the sane "moderates" wish to do.

Is this thing on? Mike! Check!

Fair and simple taxes, like a flat percentage tax on personal incomes over a threshold that's the same for everyone regardless of earnings, with no deductions.

Public budgets that are balanced by law. PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transparency in all things politics.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/265635-a-l-e-c-the-american-legislative-exchange-council.html ALEC - an example of industrialized corruption.

Spending cuts: Should we continue to spend 30% more than the next 9 nations combined in the world-wide military budget race?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-the-president-compromise-on.html#post6422586


Your turn... define 'limited government'.

 

[Londoner]

Turn off talk radio.

The income tax is a distraction when it comes to the wealthy.

We tax the rich at 15%, which is what they pay on capital gains. With deductions their effective rate is less. Mitt Romney admitted to paying 13%.

We tax labor in the 30s, which means the average poor-schmuck-worker has less money for consumption while the wealthy man has tons of extra cash (which he can't invest in the economy because the consumer has no money).

Reagan promised that tax cuts to the wealthy would trickle down to labor in the form of better jobs with higher wages/benefits. Then, right after Reagan passed his historic tax cuts, the wealthy began shipping more and more jobs to cheap labor markets. Companies like Nike and Jordache and Walmart got their products manufactured in Asian sweatshops. This is exactly what Capital wanted. It no longer wanted to pay first-world labor costs. The American Capitalist hates American Labor Costs. It gets a higher return when it is given access to the labor of freedom-hating nations which pay their workers pennies a day. Capitalism loves freedom hating nations because those nations provide the cheapest labor. In countries where there is freedom and where workers liver above poverty, the Capitalist has to pay higher wages and accept lower returns. This is anathema to Capitalism.

The fucking "job creators" have been shipping jobs to Communist China ever since the historic Reagan tax cuts. It was the biggest sleight of hand in history. Reagan created an environment where Capital could bypass American Labor. That's why you have to laugh every time they say "job creators". It's a fucking hoax, and it's supported by talk radio which preys on the stupid.

What did Reagan do when jobs started trickling to China? Answer: he expanded the credit economy. Beginning in 1980, the American family started going into massive debt in order to maintain living standards in the face of falling wages and disappearing jobs. Morning in America was brought to you by American Express, Master Card and Visa. This is why our mailboxes started filling up with unsolicited credit card offers. It was brilliant. Our jobs were sent to China (in order to give the wealthy cheap labor) and in return we got credit cards (so we could go into debt buying stuff from the wealthy). What did the wealthy do with the extra profits from shipping our jobs to China? They put it in the banks, who leant it to workers with massive interest charges. Indeed, the wealthy leant workers the money they used to make in wages.

Starting with Reagan the American consumer went on a 30 year borrowing binge. It got so bad we finally leveraged the last thing of value we had left: our homes. Now we having nothing left to borrow against - and the bills from 30 yrs of borrowing have come due. [Again: the de facto solution of Reaganomics was to give the wealthy cheaper labor, and the poor consumer more credit options. But this only works for so long. Eventually the aggregate consumer goes bankrupt or he simply cannot consume enough to sustain job growth] Don't explain this to a Conservative. They don't understand economics, and they don't understand the mobility given to Capital starting with Reagan.

Worse: in order to give the wealthy tax breaks, we cut every program that bolstered middle class demand. We awarded monopolies to health care providers, which monopolies soaked the average worker, making it even harder for families to consume and support economic growth. In order to give tax cuts to the wealthy, we cut funding to public universities, which meant that more of the money that used to go toward consumption had to go to sending children to school. We removed all the government support that allowed the middle class to consume enough to sustain growth - and we slowly replaced those supports with every debt-instrument imaginable. Reaganomics created a ticking time bomb of consumer debt. [Capitalism has always faced this problem. Its desire for ever-cheaper labor (i.e., higher returns) results in more and more consumers who can't afford to buy the products they make. Lower labor costs = lower wages = less money to buy things. And capitalism always tries to fix this by expanding credit. The real threat of Reagnomics was not the Soviet Union, which was always a paper tiger. It was the bubbles needed to keep the system going - to make up for the money that wasn't trickling down. It was the consumer credit bubble which took its most virulent form in the housing bubble and the consequent meltdown. When money isn't reaching consumers, you have to loan it to them to keep the economy going. Eventually this kind of toxic voodoo blows up]

The tax policies of Supply Side Economics made sense in the 80s - especially with the inflation of the 70s. We had bracket creep, which meant that workers drifted into higher brackets even though inflation destroyed their earning power (which meant they really weren't making more, though they were being taxed more). But times are different now.

We've spent 30 years increasing the take home pay of the wealthy and decreasing the wages and benefits of poor consumers (by sending their jobs to China in order to give the wealthy cheaper labor costs). As a result, the poor consumer had to be kept afloat with debt (credit cards, sub primes, massive student loans). But the debt blew-up and now the wealthy investor has no incentive to invest in the American economy because 30 yrs of Reaganomics killed the goose that laid the golden egg: demand.

Reagamomics is great when the problem is inflation. Reagnaomics is great when workers have tons of money for consumption. However, when consumers are tapped out and the capitalist has all the extra cash, Reaganomics is suicide. Austerity in the face of deflation and mass unemployment is truly suicide. God help us.

 

[Votto]

...And this thread had actually had some semblance of intelligent conversation and debate.

How can we improve it?

Can a "fair tax" alone help the current situation?

First of all, did you read the Wall Street Journal article and did you agree with what it was saying?

 

[Votto]

Nearly one trillion dollars over the next decade.

Bush-Era Tax Cuts Will Cost U.S. Nearly $1 Trillion Over Next Decade [GRAPHIC]

Ok, so in 10 years the government will have another trillion dollars with deficits over a trillion dollars every year. (not including the unfunded debt they intentionally leave off the books which is around $7 trillion a year)

Does this seem satisfactory to you?

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Ok, so in 10 years the government will have another trillion dollars with deficits over a trillion dollars every year. (not including the unfunded debt they intentionally leave off the books which is around $7 trillion a year)

Does this seem satisfactory to you?

Are you trying to miss the point?

 

[Votto]

Turn off talk radio.

The income tax is a distraction when it comes to the wealthy.

We tax the rich at 15%, which is what they pay on capital gains. With deductions their effective rate is less. Mitt Romney admitted to paying 13%.

We tax labor in the 30s, which means the average poor-schmuck-worker has less money for consumption while the wealthy man has tons of extra cash (which he can't invest in the economy because the consumer has no money).

Reagan promised that tax cuts to the wealthy would trickle down to labor in the form of better jobs with higher wages/benefits. Then, right after Reagan passed his historic tax cuts, the wealthy began shipping more and more jobs to cheap labor markets. Companies like Nike and Jordache and Walmart got their products manufactured in Asian sweatshops. This is exactly what Capital wanted. It no longer wanted to pay first-world labor costs.

What did Reagan do when jobs started trickling to China? Answer: he expanded the credit economy. Beginning in 1980, the American family started accumulating massive debt in order to maintain living standards in the face of falling wages and disappearing jobs.

Starting with Reagan the American consumer went on a 30 year borrowing binge. It got so bad we finally had to hawk the last thing of value we had left: our homes. Now we having nothing left to borrow against - and the bills from past consumer borrowing have come due. American families don't have enough money to consume because the rich get their labor from China. Worse: in order to give the wealthy tax breaks, we cut every program that bolstered middle class demand. We awarded monopolies to health care providers, which monopolies soaked the average worker, making it even harder for families to consume and support economic growth. In order to give tax cuts to the wealthy, we cut funding to public universities, which meant that more of the money that used to go toward consumption had to go to sending children to school.

The tax policies of Supply Side Economics made sense in the 80s - especially with the inflation of the 70s. We had bracket creep, which meant that workers drifted into higher brackets even though inflation destroyed their earning power (which meant they really weren't making more, though they were being taxed more). But times are different now.

We've spent 30 years increasing the take home pay of the wealthy and decreasing the wages and benefits of poor consumers (by sending their jobs to China in order to give the wealthy cheaper labor costs). As a result, the poor consumer had to be kept afloat with debt (credit cards, sub primes, massive student loans). But the debt blew-up and now the wealthy investor has no incentive to invest in the American economy because they killed the goose that laid the golden egg: demand.

Reagamomics is great when the problem is inflation, and when workers have tons of money for consumption. However, when consumers are tapped out and the capitalist has all the extra cash, Reaganomics is suicide. Austerity in the face of deflation and mass unemployment is truly suicide. God help us.

If I may be so bold, Romney lost the election when he not only admitted to paying only 13% in taxes, but then smiled and said it was "fair".

Wut?

First of all, what is fair? Talk of being fair is meaningless without trying to quantify what is fair, let alone why it would then be fair. I suppose his only defense would have been that most of those deductions were a result of charity donations, and that giving to charity has a better chance of helping the poor than giving the money to the whorehouse known as Capital Hill.

What no one is willing to discuss is the unfunded debt and the subsequent inflation of the dollar. Wealth is being taken from us everyday without us being aware......until we go to pay for a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread etc., but even then it does not usually register.

 

[Votto]

Are you trying to miss the point?

Which is?

I assume the point you are trying to make is that some revenue is better than no revenue. However, I would say that the revenue generated is a drop in the ocean, thus basically meaningless. In the end it is nothing more than haggling over dimes and nickles all in an attempt to sway votes.

Of course, you can't argue with success. Both "W" and Obama won reelection doing the same things.

 

[AVG-JOE]

A troll question? We are engaged in class warfare demagoguery and this is the response? We can't even question who the rich are?

Why does this make people feel so uncomfortable?

Of course it's a troll question! You already know that the 'official' answer is $250k per year and up and you already know that that's bullshit depending on what's relative.

In other words, there is as many answers as there are opinions. Let's move on to solutions, shall we?

Taxes that are fair through their simplicity, public budgets that are balanced by law*, transparency in all things politics, and then, build an economy your kids can drive to the stars.

*And don't tell me it can't be done. PAYGO in the 90's was the best fucking leash ever applied to congress and is what gave Clinton his surplus.

PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, so we are to focus on those making over $250,000 a year. Great! So how much do we take from them and how much revenue would that generate?

Now lets compare that to the deficit. Would that cover the current deficit? If memory serves, the Obama suggestion of letting the Bush tax cuts expire would come no where close to that.

So what tax increase would come close to covering a trillion plus deficit and about $5 trillion more in unfunded entitlements last year? I'll give you a clue, there are none.

Again, the Clinton surpluss was an illusion. Things like unfunded Medicare and Social Security debt is not accounted for in the budget. What part of this don't you understand?

How about we not single out anyone for special focus? How about we instead focus on fixing the basic problem of a tax code that is so complicated most Americans have know idea what they truly pay in taxes and if you talk to 5 different IRS employees you're likely to get 6 different answers to the same question?


Simplification. Balance. Transparency.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Which is?

I assume the point you are trying to make is that some revenue is better than no revenue. However, I would say that the revenue generated is a drop in the ocean, thus basically meaningless. In the end it is nothing more than haggling over dimes and nickles all in an attempt to sway votes.

Of course, you can't argue with success. Both "W" and Obama won reelection doing the same things.

...The point is that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is the most obvious and an important part of the puzzle as well as the other solutions I mentioned to fixing the fiscal house and putting value back in the dollar which is what you keep going on and on about. You seem to be looking for some magic bullet solution or one thing that will fix this but there isn't any. I don't know what you think should happen but your logic about all this is... odd...

 

[Votto]

Of course it's a troll question! You already know that the 'official' answer is $250k per year and up and you already know that that's bullshit depending on what's relative.

In other words, there is as many answers as there are opinions. Let's move on to solutions, shall we?

Taxes that are fair through their simplicity, public budgets that are balanced by law*, transparency in all things politics, and then, build an economy your kids can drive to the stars.

*And don't tell me it can't be done. PAYGO in the 90's was the best fucking leash ever applied to congress and is what gave Clinton his surplus.

PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, so we are to focus on those making over $250,000 a year. Great! So how much do we take from them and how much revenue would that generate?

Now lets compare that to the deficit. Would that cover the current deficit? If memory serves, the Obama suggestion of letting the Bush tax cuts expire would come no where close to that.

So what tax increase would come close to covering a trillion plus deficit and about $5 trillion more in unfunded entitlements last year? I'll give you a clue, there are none.

Again, the Clinton surpluss was an illusion. Things like unfunded Medicare and Social Security debt is not accounted for in the budget. What part of this don't you understand?

How about we not single out anyone for special focus? How about we instead focus on fixing the basic problem of a tax code that is so complicated most Americans have know idea what they truly pay in taxes and if you talk to 5 different IRS employees you're likely to get 6 different answers to the same question?


Simplification. Balance. Transparency.

What I'm saying is that we have a mountain of debt and growing exponentially, and a mole hill of potential revenue from taxes. The real problem is spending.

I agree that the tax code is a farce, but it favors the government. As you can see, they use it as a political ploy on the premise of bieng "fair". That is why they call it a "progressive" tax code. Also, the government makes money from the current system in various ways. After all, it collects your money over the year and does with it what they like, only to give you a very small portion back at the end of the year. Psychologically the ploy is brilliant. After all, all you think about is the refund you get back!! And lastly, the government has the ability to punish and reward through the current system. For example, corporations, like GE, who supported Obama in a major way pay next to nothing in federal taxes. However, I've heard opponents claim that they have been haranged by the IRS. Sean Hannity, who I don't really care for, even says he gives more than what is due to the IRS so they don't screw with him. Of course, he may be lying, but I've heard enough of other people complain about being haranged by the IRS who are at odds with the powers that be. Conversely, tax cheats like Geithner only get rewarded.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Again, the Clinton surpluss was an illusion. Things like unfunded Medicare and Social Security debt is not accounted for in the budget. What part of this don't you understand?

Social Security is a separate account that currently has a surplus - not part of the federal debt. Medicare is a good idea corrupted. (Can you imagine what kind of a cluster-fuck the education budget would be in if teachers were paid on a 'per pupil / per test' basis instead of being hired on salary?)

People think that the teachers unions have political power... they have NOTHING on the AMA and Big Pharma.

Graft, corruption and favoritism in both contracts and the tax code are the root of our spending problem. A complicated tax code built to funnel wealth up the food chain is responsible for our revenue issues.

 

[tjvh]

Nearly one trillion dollars over the next decade.

Bush-Era Tax Cuts Will Cost U.S. Nearly $1 Trillion Over Next Decade [GRAPHIC]

No it wouldn't cost a trillion dollars... The income Taxes would simply be collected from sales Tax because people would have more disposable income... And more people would be employed providing goods, and services with the Bush Tax cuts left in place. But let's not let reality muddy the water.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

No it wouldn't cost a trillion dollars... The income Taxes would simply be collected from sales Tax because people would have more disposable income... And more people would be employed providing goods, and services with the Bush Tax cuts left in place. But let's not let reality muddy the water.

Yeah, they've been a real winner so far.

 

[tjvh]

Yeah, they've been a real winner so far.

Anytime you are allowed to keep more of your earnings it's a winner. You also have to fully recover from the housing bubble, the current poor state of the European economy, and lending institutions not lending... But feel free to complain that you aren't giving the Government more of your earnings, and by all means blame it on Bush. Oh, Seattle... I should have guessed.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Anytime you are allowed to keep more of your earnings it's a winner. You also have to fully recover from the housing bubble, the current poor state of the European economy, and lending institutions not lending... But feel free to complain that you aren't giving the Government more of your earnings, and by all means blame it on Bush. Oh, Seattle... I should have guessed.

Blah blah blah, if there's no money circulating and the currency continues to be weak from debt than your theory of the Bush tax cut being some sort of economic stimulus won't matter anyway. There may have been a short term gain from the idiocy of the Bush tax cuts but the dollar and ultimately the economy is falling apart because of it and because of governmental mismanagement. And in terms of giving more money to the government, I'd to see this government return to tax rates that have proven to be successful and provide the country with a stable economy. The mismanagement of both the Bush/Obama administration approach on taxes and the economy is eating this country from the inside out.

And yeah Seattle, problem?

 

[KissMy]

For those on the left, and those in the middle and those really confused on the right, why do you want to see taxes increased, especially on the rich?

1. I am concerned with the rising debt.

2. I am concerned that entitlements may have to be cut.

3. I hate rich people.

4. I don't think we are paying our fair share.

Any others?

Wow - A hundred fucking threads from clueless retards worshiping & subsidizing the rich with my tax dollars.

[/IMG]

 

[AVG-JOE]

OK, so we are to focus on those making over $250,000 a year. Great! So how much do we take from them and how much revenue would that generate?

Now lets compare that to the deficit. Would that cover the current deficit? If memory serves, the Obama suggestion of letting the Bush tax cuts expire would come no where close to that.

So what tax increase would come close to covering a trillion plus deficit and about $5 trillion more in unfunded entitlements last year? I'll give you a clue, there are none.

Again, the Clinton surpluss was an illusion. Things like unfunded Medicare and Social Security debt is not accounted for in the budget. What part of this don't you understand?

How about we not single out anyone for special focus? How about we instead focus on fixing the basic problem of a tax code that is so complicated most Americans have know idea what they truly pay in taxes and if you talk to 5 different IRS employees you're likely to get 6 different answers to the same question?


Simplification. Balance. Transparency.

What I'm saying is that we have a mountain of debt and growing exponentially, and a mole hill of potential revenue from taxes. The real problem is spending.

I agree that the tax code is a farce, but it favors the government. As you can see, they use it as a political ploy on the premise of bieng "fair". That is why they call it a "progressive" tax code. Also, the government makes money from the current system in various ways. After all, it collects your money over the year and does with it what they like, only to give you a very small portion back at the end of the year. Psychologically the ploy is brilliant. After all, all you think about is the refund you get back!! And lastly, the government has the ability to punish and reward through the current system. For example, corporations, like GE, who supported Obama in a major way pay next to nothing in federal taxes. However, I've heard opponents claim that they have been haranged by the IRS. Sean Hannity, who I don't really care for, even says he gives more than what is due to the IRS so they don't screw with him. Of course, he may be lying, but I've heard enough of other people complain about being haranged by the IRS who are at odds with the powers that be. Conversely, tax cheats like Geithner only get rewarded.

"The real problem is spending.... " The most direct, immediate answer is a return to PAYGO.

And you're absolutely right, spending is a huge problem... the 2 largest sources of spending by our congress is our military, and favoritism in the tax code. This favoritism includes tax credits for both the corporate world and the welfare world.

Without this favoritism, our tax "rate" could be the lowest in the world and revenue would go up.


If we were to limit our military spending this year to EXACTLY what the next 5 nations in the military spending race combined spent last year, and take away from congress the power to tax you differently from me and both of us differently from folks like Romney, a LOT of our "spending problem" would go away.

'Spending' per se, is not the problem. Government needs to spend something. Unfortunately, with things the way they are, little of our political discussion is directed toward what We, The Peeps should buy.

The power to tax different people and organizations differently is a power that congress obviously can't handle. Corruption through tax-code favoritism is also responsible for the industrialization of lobbying. Take that power away from congress via a simple tax code where everybody knows exactly what rate everyone else is paying and the lobbying and campaign spending corruption that goes along with it is gone.



How much do Americans spend on 'Government' when campaign spending is included?

We're lookin' pretty stupid from space, folks.

 

[Claudette]

For those on the left, and those in the middle and those really confused on the right, why do you want to see taxes increased, especially on the rich?

1. I am concerned with the rising debt.

2. I am concerned that entitlements may have to be cut.

3. I hate rich people.

4. I don't think we are paying our fair share.

Any others?

I find this whole tax the rich more to solve or debt problem somewhat silly it's like telling fat people if we can get the skinny people to eat a little less you will lose weight.

Of course its silly.

Fact is that it resonated with voters who weren't interested in UE at 7.8% and an economy that is still in the toilet.

They were more concerned with the imaginary war on women and taxing the rich. Everyone is all for taxing the other guy just not themselves.

Barry and his pack of boobs certainly don't think that taxing the rich is going to cure the problem. Not enough of them to make a difference. His revenue is in the middle class. Way more of them and more tax money for them to spend.

His idea of rich is 200 to 250K and up. Loads of small business owners in there at those totals.

Will be interesting to see what he says when the economy doesn't take off like a rocket and small businesses have to close because they can't afford the taxes not with Obamacare looming large.

Oh and BTW the Dems controlled Congress for 40 years which is why we have the entitlements that we have and the albatross around our neck.