Another question for Republicans....

[DiamondDave]

Taxed out? LOL. Provide any sort of data to back up your statement. Remember I can get historical tax rates to show you how clueless you are. Feel free to give it a shot though.

Spending does need to slow down though. However if you think that's a "liberal" thing, you're not even worth talking to. Could you be any more partisan?

Remember.. your historical tax rates do not take into account what was deemed income, what was deductible, and the MASSIVE amount of loopholes that were in place.. but we all know you like to make reality more fuzzy to fit your agenda

Right, let's close the loopholes. Whats your point exactly?

What agenda do I have? Let's hear you actually say it. Because I'm pretty sure I make more money than you and I'm not just advocating for increased taxes on the rich because it would somehow benefit me....because it wouldn't. So lets hear it, what's my agenda? To do what's best for the country? Guilty as charged.

Your agenda... a system that supports your subjective whims and sense of charity paid by others... instead of a system where your freedom, success or failure, is paramount....

Freedom is best for the country... not forced compliance to your subjective criteria and forced support of others, whether they be individuals or corporations

As for your big financial huffing and chest puffing.. think al you want... I make damn good money as one of the tops in my tech field... if you make more, whoop de ******* do.. If I make more, so ******* what??

 

[DiamondDave]

So your answer is.....?

Your intellectually dishonest.

So you're not in favor of a flat tax without exemptions? Let's make sure we're on the same page with what you are in favor of.

So you've stopped beating your wife???

See... your initial premise that you cannot reduce the deficit with a flat tax is flawed, hence your options of answer are also inherently wrong....

But I'm sure a rich guy like yourself already knew that, considering you would probably have to possess some sort of intelligence to be earning your huge wage

 

[DiamondDave]

Another question for Republicans....

Are you happy paying higher taxes, so the super rich can pay less?

When the 49 percent of those that don't pay federal income tax start paying their fair share. I'll be happy

Federal income taxes make up less then 1/3 of total taxes. When you are honest and logical and include all taxes the results show that billionaires and millionaires pay less taxes then the middle class.
But I wont expect you to be logical

Nope people should pay the same percentage in taxes as the wealth they have, meaning the richest 1% needs to have their taxes increased by 50%


Medicare/Caid and SS are far more efficient then the private market. If it weren't for government wed being getting robbed by the inefficient private market. Also most rich people make their wealth by mooching off of workers

Medicare/Caid and SS are far more efficient then the private market.

You hear that in an efficient public school.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf
^Medicare costs 40% less then private insurance despite Medicare providing more benefits and better quality of care

You’re in good hands with Social Security: But Privatization Proposals Would Unravel Its Ability to Insure Against Loss of Income, Disability, and Death | Economic Policy Institute
^SS provides 26% more benefits that private market counterparts

GOP Defends Higher Education Profiteers As They Line Their Pockets With Taxpayer Dollars | ThinkProgress
Which Colleges Leave Students With the Most Debt? - US News and World Report
Fast Facts
^Also private universities are less efficient then public universities

Also private k-12 schools are less efficient as well
About Those Milwaukee Vouchers | ThinkProgress
Public Schools Outperform Private Schools in Math Instruction

Yay for opinion pieces and winger sources... they really help the cause of the loonies

 

[DiamondDave]

Another question for Republicans....

Are you happy paying higher taxes, so the super rich can pay less?

Are you happy that half of Americans pay no income tax at all so that the rest of us have to take up their slack........the majority of which is paid by the super rich?

The super rich have a majority of the wealth and it's increasing with every year. The middle class can't say the same.

In a free society, that can happen.... you have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... maybe if government got out of the way more, stopped having a safety cradle that people never get out of, there may be more people putting their nose to the grindstone and actually doing more toward their own success...

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm not willing because the federal government hasn't shown that they can quit spending with reckless abandon. Show me 10 years of lowered spending and maybe we can come to the table for some sort of compromise. Otherwise, no thanks. We're all told to make sacrifices. It's time for the government to make sacrifices and live within its budget....just like the rest of us do.

I agree that we need to fix the way we spend. Its way out of control. But to deny that we have coddled the rich for way too long is disgusting. We need a lot to change in this country both in terms of revenue and spending.

But, most on this board could care less about the spending, it's all about the taxing the rich. If they spent a little time in a math class they would find that taxing the rich doesn't dent the deficit, or the debt. it only opens the doors for more spending.

And I could say most of this board doesn't care about the fact that the rich have had a path paved in gold for them for years.

 

[RDD_1210]

Remember.. your historical tax rates do not take into account what was deemed income, what was deductible, and the MASSIVE amount of loopholes that were in place.. but we all know you like to make reality more fuzzy to fit your agenda

Right, let's close the loopholes. Whats your point exactly?

What agenda do I have? Let's hear you actually say it. Because I'm pretty sure I make more money than you and I'm not just advocating for increased taxes on the rich because it would somehow benefit me....because it wouldn't. So lets hear it, what's my agenda? To do what's best for the country? Guilty as charged.

Your agenda... a system that supports your subjective whims and sense of charity paid by others... instead of a system where your freedom, success or failure, is paramount....

Freedom is best for the country... not forced compliance to your subjective criteria and forced support of others, whether they be individuals or corporations

As for your big financial huffing and chest puffing.. think al you want... I make damn good money as one of the tops in my tech field... if you make more, whoop de ******* do.. If I make more, so ******* what??

SO what? The point is that your whole argument about why I argue for the things I believe in are because you somehow want to portray me as looking for a handout from the government, when that couldnt be further from the truth. The so what should refer to your argument which is shit when you realize that it means nothing when you try to apply my personal situation to your narrow view of the world.

 

[RDD_1210]

Your intellectually dishonest.

So you're not in favor of a flat tax without exemptions? Let's make sure we're on the same page with what you are in favor of.

So you've stopped beating your wife???

See... your initial premise that you cannot reduce the deficit with a flat tax is flawed, hence your options of answer are also inherently wrong....

But I'm sure a rich guy like yourself already knew that, considering you would probably have to possess some sort of intelligence to be earning your huge wage

How is it flawed? I notice you didn't back up anything you said. Par for the course with you though, so at least you're consistent.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Another question for Republicans....

Are you happy paying higher taxes, so the super rich can pay less?

The middle class is paying lower taxes than ever before.

You like the idea of going back to the tax code that had the top bracket at 90% right?

Did you know that in 1951 when the top rate was 90% that the lowest rate was 20%?

That means the poorest workers were paying 20% now today the lowest tax bracket is 10%

When the top tax bracket was 90% if you made 50K a year you would have been in the 63% bracket but today you would be in the 25% bracket.

So where do you get the idea that we are paying higher taxes?

We have a $15 trillion dollar debt because of Reagan and Bush lowering taxes for the rich.

Who do you think is going to have to pay off that debt?

But but but hasn't Bam Bam cut taxes too?

Your entire argument is shit because the middle class and you are not paying higher taxes.

So as i said if you want to go back to the good old days then you will be paying higher taxes along with everyone else.

And we have a 15 trillion dollar debt because the ******* government spent too much not because it didn't steal enough of our money.

 

[zeke]

Skull. You really think the guvmint is "stealing" your money?

Hows that?

Did you personally pave the roads you drove on to go somewhere. You personally out there defending this country? YOu looking out for Homeland Security? Food safety? etc etc.

So you want to have all the good things government can provide but you don't want to pay for it?
Is that what you are saying? Guvmint is stealing your money.

Sounds like you want welfare to me. Someone give me all these things (roads bridges, airports, etc)so I don't have to pay for them. And if I have to pay for them, then it must be that guvmint is "stealing my money".

Don't think so.

 

[midcan5]

Another day, another conservative / republican / libertarian prayer for the rich. See quote at end and check links for a bit of reality.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


The Great Corporate Tax Swindle | Common Dreams

"In terms of promoting economic growth, the Bush tax cuts have been a miserable failure. Under George W. Bush, U.S. GDP growth averaged 2.1 percent a year. Since the end of World War II, the country has never experienced such low economic growth during an eight-year period. And if you exclude the war demobilization of 1946, when U.S. government spending fell by two-thirds and GDP fell by 10.9 percent, Bush had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover." The Bush Tax Cuts: Failure Analysis by David Fiderer ? Failure magazine |


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth


The tax changes didn’t do much for Vermont, either. Job growth so far this decade is worse than any decade since the 1940s. We have fewer jobs today than we had in 2000."
Hoffman: Did tax cuts create jobs?


"But the record shows just the opposite. The national rate of job growth during George W. Bush’s tenure was the worst since the government starting counting in 1939....The tax changes didn’t do much for Vermont, either. Job growth so far this decade is worse than any decade since the 1940s. We have fewer jobs today than we had in 2000." Hoffman: Did tax cuts create jobs?


"I’m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn’t just that they don’t help, or that they’re ineffective—THEY REALLY HURT!" Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer


And Reagan raised taxes numerous times.

Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake


"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull. You really think the guvmint is "stealing" your money?

Hows that?

Did you personally pave the roads you drove on to go somewhere. You personally out there defending this country? YOu looking out for Homeland Security? Food safety? etc etc.

So you want to have all the good things government can provide but you don't want to pay for it?
Is that what you are saying? Guvmint is stealing your money.

Sounds like you want welfare to me. Someone give me all these things (roads bridges, airports, etc)so I don't have to pay for them. And if I have to pay for them, then it must be that guvmint is "stealing my money".

Don't think so.

The same old hackneyed roads argument.

I pay gas taxes and tolls that are supposed to pay for roads. In other words fee for service.

But what about all the other shit I pay for that I don't use?

For example why the **** should I pay for grants to cowboy poets, or so called artists? I don't have kids so why am I paying for them to go to college or high school for that matter?
Why should I pay for shit i don't use?

So when the government takes my money to spend on useless shit it's no different than someone stealing it and buying useless shit.

I pay for a town sewage plant even though I have a private septic system
I pay for town water even though I have my own well

And the list of shit the feds spend money on that I don't need want or use is endless.

 

[zeke]

damn skull, and here I thought that us Americins looked out for one another. I have problems with how much of my tax money is spent. But I don't have to much problem when the funds are spent to improve the lot of the people of this country.

I hate giving away money to oil companies and huge mega farms and countries that hate us.
Cowboy poets and shit like that are chump change and truthfully, at this point in my life, I am not to concerned with chump change. Bigger wastes of money out there to be concerned with.

One thing for sure though, there are countries out there that you could move to and not pay income taxes. Me thinks you wouldn't be to happy with some of the accomadations buy eh, you wouldn't be spending your money on things you don't like. You also would be entirely on your own. You need a paved road, pave it. You don't want to eat contaminated food, grow your own.

You get my drift? No man is an island and all that shit? You get what you pay for (or not).

It just seems strange to me that on the one hand you may think this is the greatest country on earth, made that way by the taxes workers pay and the benefits that come from programs undertaken for the good of all. On the other hand you resent paying your share to contribute to programs for all. You think selfish behavior is what made us great? Just curious. Not saying you are selfish but....... You take away the tax base of this country and what do you think we end up with?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another day, another conservative / republican / libertarian prayer for the rich. See quote at end and check links for a bit of reality.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


The Great Corporate Tax Swindle | Common Dreams

"In terms of promoting economic growth, the Bush tax cuts have been a miserable failure. Under George W. Bush, U.S. GDP growth averaged 2.1 percent a year. Since the end of World War II, the country has never experienced such low economic growth during an eight-year period. And if you exclude the war demobilization of 1946, when U.S. government spending fell by two-thirds and GDP fell by 10.9 percent, Bush had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover." The Bush Tax Cuts: Failure Analysis by David Fiderer ? Failure magazine |


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth


The tax changes didn’t do much for Vermont, either. Job growth so far this decade is worse than any decade since the 1940s. We have fewer jobs today than we had in 2000."
Hoffman: Did tax cuts create jobs?


"But the record shows just the opposite. The national rate of job growth during George W. Bush’s tenure was the worst since the government starting counting in 1939....The tax changes didn’t do much for Vermont, either. Job growth so far this decade is worse than any decade since the 1940s. We have fewer jobs today than we had in 2000." Hoffman: Did tax cuts create jobs?


"I’m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn’t just that they don’t help, or that they’re ineffective—THEY REALLY HURT!" Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer


And Reagan raised taxes numerous times.

Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake


"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith

return that wealth to its real owners

OMG! That's funny.

The national rate of job growth during George W. Bush’s tenure was the worst since the government starting counting in 1939

Obama's is worse.

 

[saveliberty]

damn skull, and here I thought that us Americins looked out for one another. I have problems with how much of my tax money is spent. But I don't have to much problem when the funds are spent to improve the lot of the people of this country.

I hate giving away money to oil companies and huge mega farms and countries that hate us.
Cowboy poets and shit like that are chump change and truthfully, at this point in my life, I am not to concerned with chump change. Bigger wastes of money out there to be concerned with.

One thing for sure though, there are countries out there that you could move to and not pay income taxes. Me thinks you wouldn't be to happy with some of the accomadations buy eh, you wouldn't be spending your money on things you don't like. You also would be entirely on your own. You need a paved road, pave it. You don't want to eat contaminated food, grow your own.

You get my drift? No man is an island and all that shit? You get what you pay for (or not).

It just seems strange to me that on the one hand you may think this is the greatest country on earth, made that way by the taxes workers pay and the benefits that come from programs undertaken for the good of all. On the other hand you resent paying your share to contribute to programs for all. You think selfish behavior is what made us great? Just curious. Not saying you are selfish but....... You take away the tax base of this country and what do you think we end up with?

I fail to see how enslaving generations of families on entitlements is helping anyone Zeke. ALL sources of waste should be stopped. Your concept of start with the biggest and ignore the smaller ones is foolish.

 

[kwc57]

The Top Decile Income Share, 1917-2008 | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

Decline of the Empire: Film

Rethinking Income Inequality: A New Kind of Payroll Tax | dagblog

Sign In

Catching up. . . « occasional links & commentary

In 2008 it included every family that made 109,000 and over, Chris.

Which leads to a questing that is begging to be asked..."what is the criteria for the chart?"

Which begs the question....

Why don't you get this?

More and more income concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

Does the French Revolution ring a bell?

Speaking of ringing a bell, the fryolater just dinged. Fries are done. Get back to work.

 

[kwc57]

I'm fine with my taxes being raised. One person can't fix a problem though, it has to be a colllective effort, but I suspect you know that. Hence why your dumb position is dumb. When are you sending a check to a millionaire?

It's called living in society. Something you obviously have no interest in. Your envy of the poor is odd considering you're one of them. See how I just throw you in to the group of poor because its convenient. Just like you did with me, even though I already told you I am not poor. Can't stray from the argument because you don't know what else to say. I get it.

I'm not willing because the federal government hasn't shown that they can quit spending with reckless abandon. Show me 10 years of lowered spending and maybe we can come to the table for some sort of compromise. Otherwise, no thanks. We're all told to make sacrifices. It's time for the government to make sacrifices and live within its budget....just like the rest of us do.

I agree that we need to fix the way we spend. Its way out of control. But to deny that we have coddled the rich for way too long is disgusting. We need a lot to change in this country both in terms of revenue and spending.

Your envy is noted. Perhaps a gun and a pair of pantyhose is in order for you to right this horrible injustice.

 

[saveliberty]

All those years of capital gains created may jobs. Imagine how much smaller our economy would have been to begin with without all that investment. Now a bunch of greedy have-nots wants to bring everyone down to their level. How about increasing the supply of jobs so demand increases wages?