Tax the rich!!!!!!!!

[Votto]

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'.

So you abhor the progressive income tax? You will have a fight on your hands with the progressive ideology. After all, no one wants their taxes raised, they simply want the taxes raised on the "rich". It's the other guy who lives better than they do that needs to be punished. It is a bullet proof sell to the public based on the natural tendency to covet.

As for transparency, what model do you hold up as an example, or are there any? In short, is this just ivory tower stuff?

As I have said, the unclaimed debt of both social security and Medicare total more than $7 trillion last year. How does one then talk only about cuts in the military to achieve a balanced budget?

Personally, I would like to see the US decrease it's military force. That way the UN won't expcet the US to go into places like Libya to clean house for them and Europe may actually have to start paying some money for their own defense.

 

[Votto]

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.

This technique is nothing new. At the risk of arousing Godwin, I hearken back to a thread I made about the Nazis. A book was written by a German historian called, "Hitler's Handouts".

Hitler's Handouts - Reason.com

In the book he makes the case that the Nazis more or less bought the support of the people. For example, the middle class lived better than the middle class of their rivals and the Nazis took about half of the income of the top 4% of the population, much of which were from Jewish people. Germany had the most progressive taxes in world history. Throughout the war there were no food shortages and the Nazis funded their welfare state, giving free medical and retirement and pretty much free everything else, through stealing from others whether it be from the "rich", the Jew, or their conquered rivals. In the end, the German people maintained support for Hitler, so the technique obviously works in regards to holding power. Of course, the more concerning aspect is that it has been proven that this technique works. in fact, it now seems possible to me that any evil activity by the state can be silenced merely by paying of the "majority" of voters in any given country.

Of course, many will object. In fact, the book created a real controversy, especially in the heart of socialism itself which is in Germany. Hopefully it did not destroy his career as a historian.

Today the modern day progressive steals as well. They steal from future generations and the populace at large as inflation gradually erodes their wealth via printing money. Make no mistake, the progressive utopia demands theft in order to work.

 

[peach174]

Just raising the taxes on the rich does not do anything. It will bring in 70 to 80 billion a year
We spend over a trillion each year.
One trillion dollars is 1,000 billion
The Dem's refuse to tackle any of the spending.
We need to cut spending.
Either cut spending or raise taxes on everyone.
We will spend 6.4 trillion in 2013
Federal Gov. spends 3.8 trillion
US Government Spending: Total, Federal, State, Local for 2013 - Charts
If we double fed tax that would (maybe) bring in 4.4 trillion which leaves .6 trillion to pay on the debt.
The working poor would pay 20 % instead of 10%
15% would go to 30%
25% would go to 50%
28% would go to 56%
33% would go to 66%
35% would go to 70%
We have a very serious spending problem and the Dem's refuse to address it.
They are playing political games with this, raise taxes on the rich only.
President Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich but refuses to deal with real spending cuts.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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'.

So you abhor the progressive income tax? You will have a fight on your hands with the progressive ideology. After all, no one wants their taxes raised, they simply want the taxes raised on the "rich". It's the other guy who lives better than they do that needs to be punished. It is a bullet proof sell to the public based on the natural tendency to covet.

As for transparency, what model do you hold up as an example, or are there any? In short, is this just ivory tower stuff?

As I have said, the unclaimed debt of both social security and Medicare total more than $7 trillion last year. How does one then talk only about cuts in the military to achieve a balanced budget?

Personally, I would like to see the US decrease it's military force. That way the UN won't expcet the US to go into places like Libya to clean house for them and Europe may actually have to start paying some money for their own defense.

Im happy to pay my fair shair ( and with my income that's a chunk ) as long as I percieve it as 'fair'. Right now it's not, so I bitch.

Transparency isn't a pipe dream - put some teeth in to the EXISTING lobby laws and strengthen them from there. Also note that I have no problem with individuals unions and corporations alike donating/spending whatever they want on issues, candidates and elections, as long as every ad is signed and every dollar accountable to the person AND the persons behind the organizations that donate/spend.

I've mentioned Medicare... the BEST answer is to make it a true public option and reform the way in which docs and hospitals are paid - pay for the total care of each patient, not on a per/patient - per/procedure basis. Same with TriCare, the elephant in the war-zone that nobody talks about.

As far as the military budget goes, I'm all for the USA having the biggest and the best, but surely that can be done with out spending 30% more than the next 10 countries combined spend.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Just raising the taxes on the rich does not do anything. It will bring in 70 to 80 billion a year

If its not that much money then the rich should have no trouble paying it.

 

[peach174]

Just raising the taxes on the rich does not do anything. It will bring in 70 to 80 billion a year

If its not that much money then the rich should have no trouble paying it.

Then what do we do, to get the rest of the 920 billion needed?

 

[saveliberty]

The fiscal cliff tax increase on the rich is $50B., so Obama is really complaining about wanting another $20-30B. Meanwhile the spending cuts are in the 100s of billions. Sounds like we come out ahead on the fiscal cliff.

 

[peach174]

The fiscal cliff tax increase on the rich is $50B., so Obama is really complaining about wanting another $20-30B. Meanwhile the spending cuts are in the 100s of billions. Sounds like we come out ahead on the fiscal cliff.

Tell us exactly what the 100's of billions of cuts are?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A much better question is, why does the R want us to continue the policies that have led us to this "cliff"?

I believe it was Einstein who said something like, 'doing the same thing, over and over, while expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity'.

We know that the R is wrong and has been wrong about damn near everything.

Actually, they have done everything right - to the advantage of the 2% and ruin of our country. THAT is what they want and its how they have "governed".

Its idiocy to let rw lemmings push us closer to that cliff.

And THAT is why Obama won the election.

Get it?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

GAWD, rws simply cannot add.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just raising the taxes on the rich does not do anything. It will bring in 70 to 80 billion a year

If its not that much money then the rich should have no trouble paying it.

It does nothing to address the problem of our massive spending and debt problem. Its actually an insult that the dems would proffer such a worthless idea. But then again, it feeds the class warfare part of their base.

 

[Paulie]

The rich aren't necessarily job creators, and job creators aren't necessarily rich.

Should we punish those who could create jobs but who are not with taxes? Is that what you are saying?

I'm at the point where I'm torn on this. We keep hearing the job creators shouting about lower taxes, and economists saying that uncertainty in the tax structure is restricting hiring...so that being the case, if we give the job creators what they want and they sit on the money then obviously that pisses me off.

I have a hard time saying "punish" them because at the end of the day I have to defer to freedom, which includes the freedom to sit on your money if you want.

I don't think we're incentivizing them enough, that's the problem. And regulations are ridiculous as well. It's more than just taxes.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The rich aren't necessarily job creators, and job creators aren't necessarily rich.

Should we punish those who could create jobs but who are not with taxes? Is that what you are saying?

I'm at the point where I'm torn on this. We keep hearing the job creators shouting about lower taxes, and economists saying that uncertainty in the tax structure is restricting hiring...so that being the case, if we give the job creators what they want and they sit on the money then obviously that pisses me off.

I have a hard time saying "punish" them because at the end of the day I have to defer to freedom, which includes the freedom to sit on your money if you want.

I don't think we're incentivizing them enough, that's the problem. And regulations are ridiculous as well. It's more than just taxes.

Fair and simple = tiny IRS.

PAYGO Spending on Education & Infrastructure!​

Internet! Communication! Transparent open politics!​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arKSXOLfPYU]Digicult - Star Travel - YouTube[/ame]

Fly Monkeys! Fly!

Momma's Little Bastards are so close.... So fucking close!



December 07, 1941.

The date that launched The Greatest Generation..... So far

The stars await and you kids ROCK!! ​

`​

 

[akelch]

The rich aren't necessarily job creators, and job creators aren't necessarily rich.

Should we punish those who could create jobs but who are not with taxes? Is that what you are saying?

I'm at the point where I'm torn on this. We keep hearing the job creators shouting about lower taxes, and economists saying that uncertainty in the tax structure is restricting hiring...so that being the case, if we give the job creators what they want and they sit on the money then obviously that pisses me off.

I have a hard time saying "punish" them because at the end of the day I have to defer to freedom, which includes the freedom to sit on your money if you want.

I don't think we're incentivizing them enough, that's the problem. And regulations are ridiculous as well. It's more than just taxes.

I agree

I think your right when you talk about uncertainty.

I think something is wrong when the whole country is hanging on the edge waiting to see if the government can just balance their budget.

 

[saveliberty]

It just seems like any tax structure other than a flat tax doesn't encourage people the right way. To me a flat tax tells me, if I want more, earn more. Ten percent tax? Okay, I get $90 for every $100 I earn. No uncertainty about what I have to do in order to have $4,000 a month to spend my way.

 

[francoHFW]

When one group triples their wealth while the rest and the country go to hell (1980-2008) and they get 93% of the growth since, THEY'RE NOT PAYING ENOUGH. DUH!

 

[saveliberty]

franco's off his meds. no repubs in the post at all.

 

[francoHFW]

idiot

Obama at 57% approval. Keep it up, dupe.

 

[Votto]

The rich aren't necessarily job creators, and job creators aren't necessarily rich.

Should we punish those who could create jobs but who are not with taxes? Is that what you are saying?

I'm at the point where I'm torn on this. We keep hearing the job creators shouting about lower taxes, and economists saying that uncertainty in the tax structure is restricting hiring...so that being the case, if we give the job creators what they want and they sit on the money then obviously that pisses me off.

I have a hard time saying "punish" them because at the end of the day I have to defer to freedom, which includes the freedom to sit on your money if you want.

I don't think we're incentivizing them enough, that's the problem. And regulations are ridiculous as well. It's more than just taxes.

Yes, you are torn between caving to envy or allowing people their freedom. Most these days just want to see the "rich" punished.

 

[Votto]

A much better question is, why does the R want us to continue the policies that have led us to this "cliff"?

I believe it was Einstein who said something like, 'doing the same thing, over and over, while expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity'.

We know that the R is wrong and has been wrong about damn near everything.

Actually, they have done everything right - to the advantage of the 2% and ruin of our country. THAT is what they want and its how they have "governed".

Its idiocy to let rw lemmings push us closer to that cliff.

And THAT is why Obama won the election.

Get it?

The democrats won't even pass a budget.