Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

[Listening]

But do you patch while still filling water??

No

You empty the water.. patch.. then don't overfill it or don't promise 2 buckets full to people when only 1 bucket full is filled per day

The bucket is empty, in large part because of the Bush tax cuts. Time to patch the holes and turn the water back on by expiring the tax cuts.

You patch the holes, and you make sure you do not promise to hand out more water while you patch the holes... AKA you cut the spending to reasonable levels by getting shit out of the fed that it was never intended to do...

Time to also not divert the small trickles of water that can also be used to fill the bucket... not leaving out 50% of the source

As a conservative, I am all for looking at additional taxes on the wealthy (income only).

But not until there has been a serious (as in not five years from now) discussion and execution of strategic cuts in spending. That includes redefing social security and medicare to make them sustainable.

 

[auditor0007]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

In what way does this not make any sense?

And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

To what extent is enough and who is to make that distinction?

Good question. Here is something to think about though. If the top 1% earned 99% of all income and the remaining 99% only earned 1%, would you be asking who should make that distinction?

One thing conservatives fail to understand is that it is not how much the rich make that upsets everyone else. It is simply the fact that the rich are the only ones to receive any benefit from productivity increases over the last thirty or so years.

 

[Listening]

The bucket is empty, in large part because of the Bush tax cuts. Time to patch the holes and turn the water back on by expiring the tax cuts.

You patch the holes, and you make sure you do not promise to hand out more water while you patch the holes... AKA you cut the spending to reasonable levels by getting shit out of the fed that it was never intended to do...

Time to also not divert the small trickles of water that can also be used to fill the bucket... not leaving out 50% of the source

The good news is that we're pulling out of Iraq, which will save a lot of money.

How much ???

I was against this mess from the start and I will be very happy to see us out.

Amounts please.

 

[Listening]

One thing conservatives fail to understand is that it is not how much the rich make that upsets everyone else. It is simply the fact that the rich are the only ones to receive any benefit from productivity increases over the last thirty or so years.

Well, since a majority of the rich today were not rich 30 years ago (if you read what is said about mobility), then you realize that they are NOT the only ones benefiting from productivity gains. Because if people in other income segments were not...they would not be getting rich.

Why do I bother ?

 

[Ravi]

You patch the holes, and you make sure you do not promise to hand out more water while you patch the holes... AKA you cut the spending to reasonable levels by getting shit out of the fed that it was never intended to do...

Time to also not divert the small trickles of water that can also be used to fill the bucket... not leaving out 50% of the source

The good news is that we're pulling out of Iraq, which will save a lot of money.

How much ???

I was against this mess from the start and I will be very happy to see us out.

Amounts please.

According to the CBO, pulling out of both Iraq and Afghanistan would save 1 Trillion over a decade.

 

[Bern80]

You can soapbox all you want about needing change that's never going to happen. Or you can be a pragmatist about it. I choose the latter.

But whatcha gonna do?

You're[sic] 'pragmatism' will make the problem worse, not better.

You're welcome to your opinion. Still not a fact skippy.

Fine I'll concede. I can live with extremely high likelihood. Noted you're still too chicken shit to answer my question. Doesn't lend much in the way of credibility to your opinion.

 

[freedombecki]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

In what way does this not make any sense?

And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

To what extent is enough and who is to make that distinction?

Good question. Here is something to think about though. If the top 1% earned 99% of all income and the remaining 99% only earned 1%, would you be asking who should make that distinction?

One thing conservatives fail to understand is that it is not how much the rich make that upsets everyone else. It is simply the fact that the rich are the only ones to receive any benefit from productivity increases over the last thirty or so years.

I've been reading that America has the highest standard of living for our poor than most societies have for their upper middle classes. That wasn't so 30 years ago when there were a lot more homeless than there are now. Today, homelessness is a choice, because most big cities have shelters for their homeless, and they say it really sucked before that.

 

[DiamondDave]

The bucket is empty, in large part because of the Bush tax cuts. Time to patch the holes and turn the water back on by expiring the tax cuts.

You patch the holes, and you make sure you do not promise to hand out more water while you patch the holes... AKA you cut the spending to reasonable levels by getting shit out of the fed that it was never intended to do...

Time to also not divert the small trickles of water that can also be used to fill the bucket... not leaving out 50% of the source

As a conservative, I am all for looking at additional taxes on the wealthy (income only).

But not until there has been a serious (as in not five years from now) discussion and execution of strategic cuts in spending. That includes redefing social security and medicare to make them sustainable.

As a conservative... I am all for looking at ways in which people are treated equally by government under law for taxation, not leaving out 1/2 the populace... after reducing the spending, which is the root of the problem...

If we have equalized tax rates on all income without exception, without deduction, without floor, etc... and we decide that a federal sales tax of %6 on all purchases, no exceptions, no loopholes, etc is also needed... I would support such a thing because it is equal treatment under law... even though I spend more money than someone making 40K, each dollar is taxed the exact same way, regardless of where it came from....

 

[Bern80]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

In what way does this not make any sense?

And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

To what extent is enough and who is to make that distinction?

Good question. Here is something to think about though. If the top 1% earned 99% of all income and the remaining 99% only earned 1%, would you be asking who should make that distinction?

One thing conservatives fail to understand is that it is not how much the rich make that upsets everyone else. It is simply the fact that the rich are the only ones to receive any benefit from productivity increases over the last thirty or so years.

They receive the most because they are the most productive.

 

[manifold]

You're[sic] 'pragmatism' will make the problem worse, not better.

You're welcome to your opinion. Still not a fact skippy.

Fine I'll concede. I can live with extremely high likelihood. Noted you're still too chicken shit to answer my question. Doesn't lend much in the way of credibility to your opinion.

It really breaks me up that you feel that way.

PS: "Extremely high liklihood" is also an opinion.

 

[Bern80]

You're welcome to your opinion. Still not a fact skippy.

Fine I'll concede. I can live with extremely high likelihood. Noted you're still too chicken shit to answer my question. Doesn't lend much in the way of credibility to your opinion.

It really breaks me up that you feel that way.

PS: "Extremely high liklihood" is also an opinion.

Yes it is. It just happens to be the opinion most likely to occur.

P.S. Again noted you're too much of a ***** to answer to my question.

 

[manifold]

Fine I'll concede. I can live with extremely high likelihood. Noted you're still too chicken shit to answer my question. Doesn't lend much in the way of credibility to your opinion.

It really breaks me up that you feel that way.

PS: "Extremely high liklihood" is also an opinion.

Yes it is. It just happens to be the opinion most likely to occur.

P.S. Again noted you're too much of a ***** to answer to my question.

It's still an opinion, no matter how strongly you believe it slappy

And I don't even know (nor do I care) what you question is.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[Oldstyle]

It really breaks me up that you feel that way.

PS: "Extremely high liklihood" is also an opinion.

Yes it is. It just happens to be the opinion most likely to occur.

P.S. Again noted you're too much of a ***** to answer to my question.

It's still an opinion, no matter how strongly you believe it slappy

And I don't even know (nor do I care) what you question is.

But whatcha gonna do?

Bottom line on this issue still hasn't changed, Manifold...

The reason that Obama didn't raise taxes during this economic downturn...why Christina Romer said it was a bad idea to raise taxes in an economic downturn...is that doing so will throw a wet blanket over an already anemic recovery.

So if we can't raise taxes why haven't we cut spending?

I think we all can admit that government is rife with waste...we are broke and having to borrow money to keep ourselves afloat...and yet we STILL haven't cut government spending and forced them to clean up their act. That's insane...

 

[manifold]

Yes it is. It just happens to be the opinion most likely to occur.

P.S. Again noted you're too much of a ***** to answer to my question.

It's still an opinion, no matter how strongly you believe it slappy

And I don't even know (nor do I care) what you question is.

But whatcha gonna do?

Bottom line on this issue still hasn't changed, Manifold...

The reason that Obama didn't raise taxes during this economic downturn...why Christina Romer said it was a bad idea to raise taxes in an economic downturn...is that doing so will throw a wet blanket over an already anemic recovery.

So if we can't raise taxes why haven't we cut spending?

I think we all can admit that government is rife with waste...we are broke and having to borrow money to keep ourselves afloat...and yet we STILL haven't cut government spending and forced them to clean up their act. That's insane...

So vote for Ron Paul in the primary. That's what I'm going to do.

 

[oreo]

What YOU think someone SHOULD be paid is irrelevant in a free society... you NOR government gets to dictate what someone SHOULD be paid...

And in a free society of equal treatment under law, how is it you think the 'evil rich' should be treated differently where ~50% pay income taxes and ~50% pay ZERO income taxes to the fed??

Government also does not exist for the redistribution of wealth... sorry charlie, this ain't a commune

The only share you are entitled to is the share you actually earn thru your own effort, choices, actions, etc.... not one that is owed to you simply because you exist as a citizen in this country

Agreed. These liberals still cannot address how much should be confiscated out of a wealthy persons income. The top 10% earners in this country pay 67% of the entire federal tax base and the 1% of that already pay 42% of the entire federal tax base. And not all of the above people work on two blocks of lower Manhattan.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because someone else will take what they work for--that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation.

 

[Billy000]

As I see it, one of the most wonderful things about this country is that a person can come here, literally with nothing in their pocket. Or, like me, they can be born to parents who worked very hard for their entire life, but really didn't have much. Literally anyone in this country, regardless of who their parents were or what 'station' they were born into can work very, very hard. If they do, then they will be successful. Part of that success is the accumulation of wealth.

Oh, now I know that the left would like us to believe that 'wealth' is really flowers, and sitting around holding hands and singing "kum ba yah" with everyone. But wealth, to most Neanderthal's like me, means that I don't have to worry about buying groceries next week. Or that if I want to have a 60" flat screen to watch the Super Bowl on, I can go down and buy one. It also means that when I get to an age where I don't want to work 12 or 16 hour days seven days a week, I can do so and have money to live on for the rest of my life. And since I worked for 30 years to accumulate that retirement money, that some one won't come along and steal it from me. Either by sticking a gun in my face or by using a proxy such as the government to stick a gun in my face.

You see, it amazes me that there are people like you who feel 'entitled' to what belongs to someone else. I didn't need the government. Didn't want the government. Actually can tell you that the government did everything within it's power to ENSURE that I did not succeed. But in spite of the government, I didn't do so bad. Now I have accumulated a nest egg that MAY see me through to the end of my life. If there is anything left over, then I will give it to my children. But of course, the government will be standing there too with their hand out.

My question to you is: Why do you feel that the United States government is anything but a hinderance to personal success? Have you seen ANYTHING that they have done that tells you that they can take the dollar from me and use it better than I can? What is in your life that allows you to believe that there is a difference between an armed man stealing your wallet and the United States government stealing your money? Besides over paid beaurocrats, what 'jobs' are created by the United States government? The constitution of the United States is a document BASED on limiting government's interference in our lives. Why is it now all the rage to allow government intrusion into every aspect of our lives?

I know that as a 'leftie' you have this bleeding heart for all of the down trodden and believe that 'the man' is responsible for all of the evil in this world. Course, the problem with all of the 'good' you want to do is that it's really not 'good' at all and "the man" is fiction. It's dependency. Go to a Native American reservation and see what 'good' the American government does for people. The entire state of Oklahoma is a reservation in reality. Billions in giveaways and still mind-numbing poverty. The sad part is, the Native Americans don't know how to break the cycle. Well, most don't. Some have severed ties completely with the government and as a result are prospering. There's a tribe in New York state that won't take a dime from the government and to get their allotments, tribal members MUST work at a tribal facility. Take their lesson, it's working.

The United States government is too big, too expensive, too intrusive, too inefficient, too ridiculous... The fact that you want MORE to feed this monstrosity borders on the insane. And since I pay for this monstrosity, I am telling you that enough is enough... Flowers and holding hands better help you get through the night, because I'm not giving you my retirement money.

This is the problem with politics of today - they are so polarized. You think just because I think the rich should be taxed more, that automatically makes me some hippie that feels entitled to more money. Believe it or not, there is a huge middle ground between the right and the left. If more people understood that, we can have compromise over issues like this.

I do not have a problem with the wealthy. I think many of them are hard-working individuals that deserve a hefty paycheck for what they do. However, there needs to be a limit. The fact of the matter is, the capital that the rich generates is far less than their income. Workers in the middle and lower class receive far less than what their labor generates. I am not suggesting that we turn the income pyramid on its head. I am suggesting that as a compromise, the rich need to be taxed more so that the hard work of the lower classes can be realized. Just because someone MAKES 350,000+ a year, it doesn't mean they EARNED 350,000+ a year.

In truth, the issue comes down to the philsophy of a capitialistic society. You think the government should stay out of the free market. I get that, but in the interest of the greater good, there does need to be limitations.

I am no socialist. Capitialism is what made this country so powerful. I think it's great. But that doesn't mean that the government has no place in it. The rich didn't get rich on their own. Society helped make them rich.

 

[Listening]

I am no socialist. Capitialism is what made this country so powerful. I think it's great. But that doesn't mean that the government has no place in it. The rich didn't get rich on their own. Society helped make them rich.

If you read through this thread....you see two streams of thought.

1. Everyone should pay something.
2. We need to cut spending.

If those two conditions are met, we might agree to raise taxes. And my guess is that people (the wealthy) would be willing to pay.

If you just want to keep spending...forget it.

 

[Billy000]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Thanks, Chris. Solid statistics to support my argument.

 

[healthmyths]

Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

Because they are special. Many are "demi-gods", that's why Republicans call the the "CREATORS" (play heavenly music here). They are the only ones who work hard. They deserve to run the country. Because they made lots of money.

Perhaps you should ask the rich lib/dems why they don't/haven't willingly, paid more in taxes...duh. Are 'they' special?

Why not ASK OBAMA???
on his $1.7 million (MILLIONAIRE!!!) reported income to reduce his 2010 taxes to 26% rather then donating the full 35% and not taking any charitiable donations as a TAX WRITE OFF!!!
Obama's 2010 Tax return
Obama's Adjusted gross income $1,728,096
Federal taxes paid 453,770 26.26% of gross income
Donations 245,075 14.18% of his income.

Think of the hypocrisy! He bitches and moans about millionaires and billionaires NOT paying "enough">..
AND he takes $245,075 in donations, and OTHER by the way UNKNOWN
deductions.. to chisel his tax bill down to 26%.. when HE COULD HAVE
paid MORE but no... he took advantage of "TAX LOOPHOLES!!

 

[Intense]

Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

Because they are special. Many are "demi-gods", that's why Republicans call the the "CREATORS" (play heavenly music here). They are the only ones who work hard. They deserve to run the country. Because they made lots of money.

Perhaps you should ask the rich lib/dems why they don't/haven't willingly, paid more in taxes...duh. Are 'they' special?

Why not ASK OBAMA???
on his $1.7 million (MILLIONAIRE!!!) reported income to reduce his 2010 taxes to 26% rather then donating the full 35% and not taking any charitiable donations as a TAX WRITE OFF!!!
Obama's 2010 Tax return
Obama's Adjusted gross income $1,728,096
Federal taxes paid 453,770 26.26% of gross income
Donations 245,075 14.18% of his income.

Think of the hypocrisy! He bitches and moans about millionaires and billionaires NOT paying "enough">..
AND he takes $245,075 in donations, and OTHER by the way UNKNOWN
deductions.. to chisel his tax bill down to 26%.. when HE COULD HAVE
paid MORE but no... he took advantage of "TAX LOOPHOLES!!

How about we ask him to spend some of his own campaign money while he's campaigning? Hey if buses had wings he could save some bucks there. Maybe he could just make an executive order or have the EPA declare that buses must have wings.