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

[M14 Shooter]

M14 Shooter...I'm just saying I'm sick of the whining by the right using the phrase..."half of those filing taxes owe nothing," when this was a result of a republican sponsored bill which Bush signed which raised the totals of Americans not oweing taxes from 37% to about 48%.

So... the fact that those that opposed the tax cuts have been lying thru their teeth for 10 years doesn't bother you?

 

[Oldstyle]

Here's a hint...

You can raise taxes when the economy is booming (ie, the Dot Com boom!)

If you raise taxes when the economy is in a recession or just coming out of a recession then you'll kill whatever growth you've got going on.

It's why Obama and the Dems extended the Bush tax cuts. It's why Christina Romer even admitted now would be a bad time to raise taxes.

Yet you folks keep parroting the same silly premise...that raising taxes on the rich is what we need to do to get ourselves out of this mess. It drives me crazy to see such illogical thinking being employed.

 

[manifold]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

You might want to ask The Obama why He didn't do so, rather than forcing the Democrats to extend GWB's tax cuts.

If I ever had the opportunity, that is the exact thing I would ask him about.

He had the power to let the Bush cuts expire and didn't need one lick of Congress' help to do it, and he ****'n wussed out. He campaigned so heavily on this that I considered his election a mandate on this one specific (in)action. What happened convinced me that he's a piece of shit. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna vote for an even bigger piece of shit from the GOP. If Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, I'm going to hold my nose and vote Obama.

 

[RDD_1210]

we should take all money spent by the federal government for the year... add a bit to pay down some of the debt.... divide by the number of people over 18 and send each a bill for the exact same amount.....


this would eliminate all federal taxes at all levels.....

and it would force people to face the true cost of govenrment instead of passing it down to future generations.......

sure, the first bill will be high, but you can bet that there will be serious spending reforms before the next bill comes........

Lets see some figures for your plan. How much would this be per person?

well,...

spending for 2010 was approx 3.5 trillion...

add a trillion of debt to that

4.5 trillion

there are approximately 220 million people over 18 in the us......

that comes out to about 20,000 per person per year........

So this plan would never work is what you're saying?

 

[teapartysamurai]

M14 Shooter...I'm just saying I'm sick of the whining by the right using the phrase..."half of those filing taxes owe nothing," when this was a result of a republican sponsored bill which Bush signed which raised the totals of Americans not oweing taxes from 37% to about 48%.

In otherwords, it's the fault of the right that almost 1/2 do not owe taxes, so quit whining about it.


To Tea Party Samuri...the fiscal year ends in September, so the first 9 months after Obama raised his right hand, he had no control over the unemployment rate, which in Sept of '09 stood at 9.8%.

The unemployment rate rose steadily toward the end of the Bush nightmare.

How can you blame that on Obama?!

FIND OUT WHEN OBAMA PUT FORTH THE STIMULUS!

It was in the FIRST MONTH OF his admin. Every time Obama spent, every time he basically had them print money, it weakened the dollar and the American economy reflected it.

Obama signs stimulus into law 2/17/2009

Obama signs stimulus into law - politics - White House - msnbc.com

Every time Obama spends, our economy goes further and further South.

And what's Obama's solution to our woes? Why spend some more!!!!!!!

 

[Hoot]

For those interested, this type of info is all over the internet..easily searchable...

"The United States long has had the industrialized world's largest gap in pay between chief executives and blue-collar workers. CEO compensation swelled from 85 times what workers earned in 1990, to 209 times in 1996, and 326 times the following year. In 1999, CEO pay surged to a record 419 times the average worker's wage, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The gap then declined, to 282-to-1 in 2002, before surpassing 300-to-1 the following year, according to the research and advocacy group United for a Fair Economy (UFE).

Comparable figures for other wealthy nations generally do not exceed the double digits.

U.S. CEOs' pay rose 313 percent from 1990 to 2003, UFE said. By contrast, the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index rose 242 percent and corporate profits gained 128 percent.

During the same period, average worker pay rose 49 percent while inflation climbed 41 percent."

So someone convince me why we shouldn't place tax rates on the rich back to Clinton era levels?! Gee...I'm feeling guilty now...maybe the rich won't be able to afford the latest Bently, or those pool side massages, or getaways to the Rivera as often...sob.

 

[Oldstyle]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

You might want to ask The Obama why He didn't do so, rather than forcing the Democrats to extend GWB's tax cuts.

If I ever had the opportunity, that is the exact thing I would ask him about.

He had the power to let the Bush cuts expire and didn't need one lick of Congress' help to do it, and he ****'n wussed out. He campaigned so heavily on this that I considered his election a mandate on this one specific (in)action. What happened convinced me that he's a piece of shit. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna vote for an even bigger piece of shit from the GOP. If Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, I'm going to hold my nose and vote Obama.

Instead of holding your nose...open your eyes. There is a REASON the Bush tax cuts were extended. Failure to do so would have crippled what little economic recovery we did have and Obama and the Democrats who failed to live up to their campaign promises, knew that only too well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

You might want to ask The Obama why He didn't do so, rather than forcing the Democrats to extend GWB's tax cuts.

If I ever had the opportunity, that is the exact thing I would ask him about.
He had the power to let the Bush cuts expire and didn't need one lick of Congress' help to do it, and he ****'n wussed out. He campaigned so heavily on this that I considered his election a mandate on this one specific (in)action. What happened convinced me that he's a piece of shit.

Good for you.

But that doesn't mean I'm gonna vote for an even bigger piece of shit from the GOP. If Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, I'm going to hold my nose and vote Obama.

Ah... partisanship apparently never really takes a back seat.

 

[Listening]

For those interested, this type of info is all over the internet..easily searchable...

"The United States long has had the industrialized world's largest gap in pay between chief executives and blue-collar workers. CEO compensation swelled from 85 times what workers earned in 1990, to 209 times in 1996, and 326 times the following year. In 1999, CEO pay surged to a record 419 times the average worker's wage, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The gap then declined, to 282-to-1 in 2002, before surpassing 300-to-1 the following year, according to the research and advocacy group United for a Fair Economy (UFE).

Comparable figures for other wealthy nations generally do not exceed the double digits.

U.S. CEOs' pay rose 313 percent from 1990 to 2003, UFE said. By contrast, the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index rose 242 percent and corporate profits gained 128 percent.

During the same period, average worker pay rose 49 percent while inflation climbed 41 percent."

So someone convince me why we shouldn't place tax rates on the rich back to Clinton era levels?! Gee...I'm feeling guilty now...maybe the rich won't be able to afford the latest Bently, or those pool side massages, or getaways to the Rivera as often...sob.

Why does anyone care how much the rich have. All that matters is what we have and we seem to have a great deal. So what is the issue ?

There is a story ciruclating that Buffet and Gates have talked to several (like 40) billionaries into giving away a lot of money.

I still don't get the issue here.

If you want to raise taxes, tell me what for. When you've cut out food stamps and welfare programs back to what they should be.....and means tested S.S....and made a number of other adjustments....I'll be happy to talk taxes.

 

[manifold]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

If you can give us a "Dot Com Boom" to go along with those Clinton era tax rates then that should work out great, Manifold. If you can't come up with one of THOSE then it's going to be an economic disaster. What the **** is wrong with you people? Put some thought into it before you post this nonsense.

I understand the economic theory you espouse. However, I still respectfully disagree. The so called "Dot Com Boom" was, as we all know, a balloon full of hot air. There wasn't any real corporate earnings to support the inflated stock prices. So the only boom to tax revenues one can logically ascribe came from capital gains taxes, not income taxes. And given the fact that a return to Clinton era rates would leave the capital gains rate unchanged at 15% (currently set to go up to 20% in 2013 btw), I can't abide your argument. Increasing the highest marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39% would not be even remotely catastrophic to the economy and pretending it would is nothing more than fear mongering.

 

[manifold]

You might want to ask The Obama why He didn't do so, rather than forcing the Democrats to extend GWB's tax cuts.

If I ever had the opportunity, that is the exact thing I would ask him about.
He had the power to let the Bush cuts expire and didn't need one lick of Congress' help to do it, and he ****'n wussed out. He campaigned so heavily on this that I considered his election a mandate on this one specific (in)action. What happened convinced me that he's a piece of shit.

Good for you.

But that doesn't mean I'm gonna vote for an even bigger piece of shit from the GOP. If Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, I'm going to hold my nose and vote Obama.

Ah... partisanship apparently never really takes a back seat.

I guess you glossed over the Ron Paul reference.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If I ever had the opportunity, that is the exact thing I would ask him about.
He had the power to let the Bush cuts expire and didn't need one lick of Congress' help to do it, and he ****'n wussed out. He campaigned so heavily on this that I considered his election a mandate on this one specific (in)action. What happened convinced me that he's a piece of shit.

Good for you.

But that doesn't mean I'm gonna vote for an even bigger piece of shit from the GOP. If Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, I'm going to hold my nose and vote Obama.

Ah... partisanship apparently never really takes a back seat.

I guess you glossed over the Ron Paul reference.

Nope. Got it. Along with your plenary refusal to accept anyone but him from the GOP.

 

[Oldstyle]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

If you can give us a "Dot Com Boom" to go along with those Clinton era tax rates then that should work out great, Manifold. If you can't come up with one of THOSE then it's going to be an economic disaster. What the **** is wrong with you people? Put some thought into it before you post this nonsense.

I understand the economic theory you espouse. However, I still respectfully disagree. The so called "Dot Com Boom" was, as we all know, a balloon full of hot air. There wasn't any real corporate earnings to support the inflated stock prices. So the only boom to tax revenues one can logically ascribe came from capital gains taxes, not income taxes. And given the fact that a return to Clinton era rates would leave the capital gains rate unchanged at 15% (currently set to go up to 20% in 2013 btw), I can't abide your argument. Increasing the highest marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39% would not be even remotely catastrophic to the economy and pretending it would is nothing more than fear mongering.

A "boom" by definition is a balloon, Manifold. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Higher housing values during the housing boom we experienced before this latest crash brought in huge amounts of additional revenues. To pretend that the Dot Com boom didn't pump huge amounts of revenue into government during the Clinton years is ridiculous. It did.

My point was that raising taxes to the levels they were at without a corresponding boom to fuel economic growth is going to have a completely different result now than it did during Clinton's time. That isn't "fear mongering" it's simple economics.

 

[Hoot]

Here's a hint...

You can raise taxes when the economy is booming (ie, the Dot Com boom!)

If you raise taxes when the economy is in a recession or just coming out of a recession then you'll kill whatever growth you've got going on.

It's why Obama and the Dems extended the Bush tax cuts. It's why Christina Romer even admitted now would be a bad time to raise taxes.

Yet you folks keep parroting the same silly premise...that raising taxes on the rich is what we need to do to get ourselves out of this mess. It drives me crazy to see such illogical thinking being employed.

I'm not saying taxing the rich will get us out of this mess, but the "right" loves to parrot the fact taxing the rich will not put a dent in our debt....therefore, we shouldn't increase taxes?!

Besides, the latest from the IRS proves the top 30 Fortune 500 companies are not paying one penny in taxes,,,and those of you on the right believe this is good for the economy?

That if we make them pay taxes, it will hurt the economy? LOL!

There have been instances where raising taxes helped the economy, and periods where lowering taxes did NOT increase revenue, or increase jobs or production, as the right so often reguritates.

There are no hard and fast rules on this issue.

But c'mon people...you want to protect all these CEO's and use the middle class and poor to balance the budget by cutting programs designed to help the poor, while screaming we can't raise taxes on the richest 1%?

This is not the America I grew up in, and believe it or not, I'm a veteran, who was an AF brat, whose family was conservative...the problem being, conservatives no longer exist today.

I think Bush may have had something to do with conservatives being placed on the endangered species list? They're quite rare these days.

 

[manifold]

Good for you.



Ah... partisanship apparently never really takes a back seat.

I guess you glossed over the Ron Paul reference.

Nope. Got it. Along with your plenary refusal to accept anyone but him from the GOP.

I should have qualified that better. Anyone but him from the current crop of candidates. Although after the last two debates, if Newt managed to pull it out I might give him another look.

 

[manifold]

If you can give us a "Dot Com Boom" to go along with those Clinton era tax rates then that should work out great, Manifold. If you can't come up with one of THOSE then it's going to be an economic disaster. What the **** is wrong with you people? Put some thought into it before you post this nonsense.

I understand the economic theory you espouse. However, I still respectfully disagree. The so called "Dot Com Boom" was, as we all know, a balloon full of hot air. There wasn't any real corporate earnings to support the inflated stock prices. So the only boom to tax revenues one can logically ascribe came from capital gains taxes, not income taxes. And given the fact that a return to Clinton era rates would leave the capital gains rate unchanged at 15% (currently set to go up to 20% in 2013 btw), I can't abide your argument. Increasing the highest marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39% would not be even remotely catastrophic to the economy and pretending it would is nothing more than fear mongering.

A "boom" by definition is a balloon, Manifold. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Higher housing values during the housing boom we experienced before this latest crash brought in huge amounts of additional revenues. To pretend that the Dot Com boom didn't pump huge amounts of revenue into government during the Clinton years is ridiculous. It did.

My point was that raising taxes to the levels they were at without a corresponding boom to fuel economic growth is going to have a completely different result now than it did during Clinton's time. That isn't "fear mongering" it's simple economics.

Like I said, I get the theory. In fact there was a time when I bought it hook, line and sinker as well. I've since grown to understand that there are no absolutes in macro-economic theory and I simply disagree with you about what would happen. And that's ok. But I voted for it, it won, it didn't happen. I think I'm allowed to be a little annoyed.

 

[midcan5]

There is a pattern of thought in America that the rich work hard and the poor are lazy. That is the simple high level view. In reality anyone who lives in the real world knows that many of the poor work hard and many of the rich are as lazy as hell. I know lots of both types having risen up the food change and owning expensive property among the so called hard workers. But why argue, if you truly believe it is only a matter of work, then you would need to provide empirical evidence which should be easy. Take a hundred children born poor who work hard and see if they match up to a hundred wealthy children who are lazy, and I would bet a big figure, you'd find the lazy ones did better. Why? Again if you live in the real world you'd know, but why argue. I done seen it with me own eyes. As my dear father used to say too often before he abandoned ship, it takes money - he was mostly right. Paradox is, everyone knows an exception, which of course reinforces error.


"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


"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy


"If The $5.15 Hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
A Minimum Wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.
Such A Worker would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.
In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.
In 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000." A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

 

[Wiseacre]

Can any lib/dem give me a good reason why the gov't should spend more than 4 trillion in about 3 years over the revenue they took in? We're about to hit 15 trillion in debt by year's end, many project the debt to rise to $25 trillion in 10 years.

News flash to the lib/dems: you can't raise taxes enough to cover it, not even close. Say we did raise taxes enough to get an extra trillion in revenue like Obama wants. What the **** are you going to do about the other 24 ******* trillion dollars in debt? When are you going to accept the fact that we have a spending problem that our kids are going to have to pay for?

 

[Wiseacre]

There is a pattern of thought in America that the rich work hard and the poor are lazy. That is the simple high level view. In reality anyone who lives in the real world knows that many of the poor work hard and many of the rich are as lazy as hell. I know lots of both types having risen up the food change and owning expensive property among the so called hard workers. But why argue, if you truly believe it is only a matter of work, then you would need to provide empirical evidence which should be easy. Take a hundred children born poor who work hard and see if they match up to a hundred wealthy children who are lazy, and I would bet a big figure, you'd find the lazy ones did better. Why? Again if you live in the real world you'd know, but why argue. I done seen it with me own eyes. As my dear father used to say too often before he abandoned ship, it takes money - he was mostly right. Paradox is, everyone knows an exception, which of course reinforces error.


"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


"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy


"If The $5.15 Hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
A Minimum Wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.
Such A Worker would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.
In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.
In 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000." A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

Words fail me, how any sane person can think we can raise the highest tax rate to 70% and solve all our problems, it's just ludicrous. Lotta people in that boat, but man, you're a long way from reality.

 

[Bern80]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

Well other than it doesn't address the real problem (government over spending) at all..........