Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[Wiseacre]

Taxes are a small part of the problem, folks.

We're not going to solve the economic mess by JUST taxing the wealthy more OR BY taxing them less, either.

IF (and I say IF because I don't think the leadership really gives a rat's ass) we truly want to fix our economy, we've got to put Americans to work.

International corporations have no financial incentive to put Americans to work.

Fix that problem and THEN American's fincal woes will slowly and steadily get better AS LONG AS WE CAN KEEP THE GOVERNMENT FROM SPENDING THE NEW REVENUE MONEY (New $ MADE FROM MORE AMERICANS WORKING AGAIN) FOOLISHLY.

Doing both those things is a mighty tall order.

It would requirte major rethinks in what the purpose of having a government even is.

And since so many people believe that the only point of government is protect private property, I'd say that this nation is going down.

Domestic corps don't have much incentive to put more americans to work either. If anything, we're incentivizing companies to move offshore and create jobs elsewhere.

I mean come on, who knows how the ObamaCare thing is going to work out and what HC costs will be going forward. Who knows what the EPA and NLRB will do if Obama gets re-elected, or how many more regulations will be created. I think Editec is right, taxes are only one factor in a list of considerations, until we change the business climate here we're just going to muddle along at best. Let's not talk about at worst, things could get seriously hard.

 

[FA_Q2]

What is your solution then…

My solution?

As in tens words or less?

I certainly agree that this nation has given far too many breaks to the supply side (tx breaks being part of that process) and that does need to be addressed.

But if ALL we do is tax the rich, then seriously, FA....things will only get WORSE, not better.

Why?

Because the rich will simply channel their cash to foreign shores even faster than they've been doing that.

Where have I said anything about simply taxing the rich? I don't think that anyone other than the democrats have said that at all and I have argued against that exact thing. That is why I would rather see the tax system fundamentally changed NOT simply raising taxes. The system is broken in its current state. I believe that the actual tax rate should be far lower but that exemptions and credits should not exist. That WOULD create a tax increase for the uber rich that do not care what the rate is, reduce tax rates for the middle and upper middle class, slightly increase taxes for the lower middle class and would not affect the poor.

I agree that our trade policies need a serious hard look and that it may cause very rough times in the short run but would massively improve things in the long run to create a trade environment that encouraged local production over off shoring.

What we really need to do is ask ourselves:

What is the point of having a nation if it doesn't understand that its purpose is to AID THE PEOPLE IN IT?

Very true but I thing that you and I have extremely different views on what that statement means.

We seem to have forgotten why people form governments to begin with.

We are as a people out of balance economically, and merely tinkering with the tax codes will NOT solve the problem.

We need to change the social contract.

Change the social contract? That is a statement without meaning in its current form. I ask you to expound in what you mean by that.

Editec?

 

[SuMar]

Since DC Democrats and Republicans are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash, it falls on workers to demand a massive public works program which can be funded by taxing corporations and the richest Americans at pre-Reagan levels.

"And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top.

"The rich have plenty of money to spare."

Spare me the brain-dead conservative vomit about how hard the rich have "worked" for all their money.

The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds instead of prosecuting the executives responsible for the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The rich have the money because their chief enabler, The Federal Reserve, has fueled a major commodity bubble "that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession."

Throw in high unemployment which allows the rich to work remaining employees harder and thus increase profits and combine it with commodity speculation and you have the entire basis for a corporate recovery which both major parties tout as "proof" of economic "recovery."

It's another lie the rich tell.

When the Fed stops purchasing 60% of US Treasury bonds, a new creditor will have to step up. One that will probably demand significantly higher interest rates before loaning anymore money to the US Government.

Surprise, surprise - the rich win again!

They got all that free bail-out money which increased the deficit.
None of them went to prison for their crimes.
Their bottom lines are being enhanced by commodity speculation and high unemployment.
And now the rich want higher interest rates for investing in US Treasury Bonds.

"In (all) instances working people pay the bills."

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams

Tax everybody and get rid of useless liberal programs.

 

[georgephillip]

Taxes are a small part of the problem, folks.

We're not going to solve the economic mess by JUST taxing the wealthy more OR BY taxing them less, either.

IF (and I say IF because I don't think the leadership really gives a rat's ass) we truly want to fix our economy, we've got to put Americans to work.

International corporations have no financial incentive to put Americans to work.

Fix that problem and THEN American's fincal woes will slowly and steadily get better AS LONG AS WE CAN KEEP THE GOVERNMENT FROM SPENDING THE NEW REVENUE MONEY (New $ MADE FROM MORE AMERICANS WORKING AGAIN) FOOLISHLY.

Doing both those things is a mighty tall order.

It would requirte major rethinks in what the purpose of having a government even is.

And since so many people believe that the only point of government is protect private property, I'd say that this nation is going down.

Domestic corps don't have much incentive to put more americans to work either. If anything, we're incentivizing companies to move offshore and create jobs elsewhere.

I mean come on, who knows how the ObamaCare thing is going to work out and what HC costs will be going forward. Who knows what the EPA and NLRB will do if Obama gets re-elected, or how many more regulations will be created. I think Editec is right, taxes are only one factor in a list of considerations, until we change the business climate here we're just going to muddle along at best. Let's not talk about at worst, things could get seriously hard.

More and more, US corporation are finding their workers and consumers abroad, China, India and Brazil, for example. Given that corporate law requires executives to maximize profits regardless of the overall cost to society, it's hard to see how coax that genie back into his bottle without a Second Constitutional Convention.

I'm guessing ObamaCare will put more money in the pockets of America's investor class because it is that same economic class that funds the election campaigns of Democrats AND Republicans alike. Changing that could be simpler, imo. If millions of American voters turn on ALL incumbents in 2012, FLUSHING hundreds of Dems and Reps from DC in a single news cycle, some new solutions to some very old problems would finally see the light of day.

I also suspect this economy would have to scream loudly enough to focus American attention spans the way 911 did before a movement capable of reforming capitalism would emerge, and it's only at that point that things would get seriously hard.

Some of the forces arrayed against workers today have been in place for thousands of years, possibly since the Fall of Man. All power concedes nothing without a demand, but the Power I'm talking about will concede nothing until it's pried from its cold, dead hand.

 

[daveman]

Listen Mr. Unemployed. While I thank you for your service to the country. Go get a job... oh that's right... with your impeccable resume, I guess your job went to China.

If it did, it's thanks to you idiot leftists driving business out of the country. Thanks a lot, moron.

Btw... nice that you left out my response to what you quoted. That's how you guys roll though isn't is... half truths and lies.

You're whining because I didn't respond to your lame spin? Well, I guess you'll just have to live with it, you sissy bedwetter.

Left wing idiots driving business away? Yeah.. that's it. I guess Reagan/Bush I had nothing to do with it.. giving China "most favored nation" status against many protests, huh? And boy your corporate boyfriends loved that... What a way to bust Unions and force lower wages to our people than to get slave labor.

YOUR boys created this mess.

Sissy bedwetter? you're the one collecting unemployment and at the same time pissing and moaning about deadbeats. hypocrite.

Do you, or do you not, support policies that punish success and are hostile to business?

Hint: Yes, you do. But you'll never admit it. Blaming others for your actions is far easier.

 

[daveman]

I'm saying that you are probably one of the least qualified people to decide who deserves what. Every time a group of people try to "equalize" everyone economically they end up screwing everyone else over, and enriching themselves.

Your envy and greed are obvious to anyone who isnt a fellow money grabber such as yourself.

Unless you are among the rich you are among the brainwashed Tories who serve their interests like a trained dog. You've been conditioned to believe the ambition to restore economic balance is an intention to "equalize" the Nation's wealth resources, as in communism, when in fact there is no such intention, nor has any such idea been suggested.

Equitably taxing the rich does not mean impoverishing them. It simply means to tax them in proportion with the level of the lower income brackets. If the progressive tax rate that existed during the most economically successful decades in our history, the late 40s through the 70s, were restored the rich would still be rich, as they were then, they simply wouldn't be as rich.

Your problem is you see greed on the wrong side of this class war.

What's your point? That wealthy people have too much and you feel the need to take more of it?
Why is it you Lefties will not address the hyperspending by government? What is it you have against fiscal responsibility?

You can't buy Democrat votes by being fiscally responsible.

That's all it is.

 

[Steelplate]

Tax everybody and get rid of useless liberal programs.

Which useless liberal programs would you like to see gotten rid of? Social Security... a Program that people have been paying into all their lives? Medicare? Much the same.

Welfare? with a $14T deficit, you are going to axe a program that allows our most helpless people live a bare bones existence... to save $22B?

Unemployment? Ok... this one I might be able to agree with... Bring the jobs back and bring those Real wages with them. Then we'll talk about that one.

Health Care Reform? Once again... I might be able to agree... IF.... we go to a single payer system.... or at least add a Public Option to the current system. Imagine if small businesses wouldn't have to insure their employees anymore and the cost was spread across every taxpayer in America.... That would stimulate growth and Competition... But Big Business doesn't REALLY want Competition... so they fight against it with a bunch of flag waving and cries of Socialism.

 

[Steelplate]

Unless you are among the rich you are among the brainwashed Tories who serve their interests like a trained dog. You've been conditioned to believe the ambition to restore economic balance is an intention to "equalize" the Nation's wealth resources, as in communism, when in fact there is no such intention, nor has any such idea been suggested.

Equitably taxing the rich does not mean impoverishing them. It simply means to tax them in proportion with the level of the lower income brackets. If the progressive tax rate that existed during the most economically successful decades in our history, the late 40s through the 70s, were restored the rich would still be rich, as they were then, they simply wouldn't be as rich.

Your problem is you see greed on the wrong side of this class war.

What's your point? That wealthy people have too much and you feel the need to take more of it?
Why is it you Lefties will not address the hyperspending by government? What is it you have against fiscal responsibility?

You can't buy Democrat votes by being fiscally responsible.

That's all it is.

What a crock. Democrats tried to do the Fiscally Responsible thing with Health Care but cowed down to you nutjobs screaming your heads off.

 

[daveman]

What's your point? That wealthy people have too much and you feel the need to take more of it?
Why is it you Lefties will not address the hyperspending by government? What is it you have against fiscal responsibility?

You can't buy Democrat votes by being fiscally responsible.

That's all it is.

What a crock. Democrats tried to do the Fiscally Responsible thing with Health Care but cowed down to you nutjobs screaming your heads off.

It's funny, because you really believe that, and it's sad, because you vote.

 

[georgephillip]

Tax everybody and get rid of useless liberal programs.

Which useless liberal programs would you like to see gotten rid of? Social Security... a Program that people have been paying into all their lives? Medicare? Much the same.

Welfare? with a $14T deficit, you are going to axe a program that allows our most helpless people live a bare bones existence... to save $22B?

Unemployment? Ok... this one I might be able to agree with... Bring the jobs back and bring those Real wages with them. Then we'll talk about that one.

Health Care Reform? Once again... I might be able to agree... IF.... we go to a single payer system.... or at least add a Public Option to the current system. Imagine if small businesses wouldn't have to insure their employees anymore and the cost was spread across every taxpayer in America.... That would stimulate growth and Competition... But Big Business doesn't REALLY want Competition... so they fight against it with a bunch of flag waving and cries of Socialism.

Health care reform could have started with removing three words from the 1965 Medicare Act.
Citizens over sixty-five would have become citizens (period)

Obama had all the cover he needed on Wall Street.
If he had started prosecuting the "savvy businessmen" instead of bailing them out, his approval ratings would have rivaled Bush's the week after 911.

Goldman Sachs never made a better investment than the $900,000 they donated to Hope and Change in 2008.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tax everybody and get rid of useless liberal programs.

Which useless liberal programs would you like to see gotten rid of? Social Security... a Program that people have been paying into all their lives? Medicare? Much the same.

Welfare? with a $14T deficit, you are going to axe a program that allows our most helpless people live a bare bones existence... to save $22B?

Unemployment? Ok... this one I might be able to agree with... Bring the jobs back and bring those Real wages with them. Then we'll talk about that one.

Health Care Reform? Once again... I might be able to agree... IF.... we go to a single payer system.... or at least add a Public Option to the current system. Imagine if small businesses wouldn't have to insure their employees anymore and the cost was spread across every taxpayer in America.... That would stimulate growth and Competition... But Big Business doesn't REALLY want Competition... so they fight against it with a bunch of flag waving and cries of Socialism.

Health care reform could have started with removing three words from the 1965 Medicare Act.
Citizens over sixty-five would have become citizens (period)

Obviously the best way to reform an unsustainable entitlement program is to add hundreds of millions of additional recipients. LOL!

 

[Steelplate]

If it did, it's thanks to you idiot leftists driving business out of the country. Thanks a lot, moron.

You're whining because I didn't respond to your lame spin? Well, I guess you'll just have to live with it, you sissy bedwetter.

Left wing idiots driving business away? Yeah.. that's it. I guess Reagan/Bush I had nothing to do with it.. giving China "most favored nation" status against many protests, huh? And boy your corporate boyfriends loved that... What a way to bust Unions and force lower wages to our people than to get slave labor.

YOUR boys created this mess.

Sissy bedwetter? you're the one collecting unemployment and at the same time pissing and moaning about deadbeats. hypocrite.

Do you, or do you not, support policies that punish success and are hostile to business?

Hint: Yes, you do. But you'll never admit it. Blaming others for your actions is far easier.

Kind of like you with government? No... not even close to your hatred.

I have no problem with people making money. I have no problem with success. I just have a problem when they take moneymaking to the point where they are hurting our citizens and the country. I have a problem when our economy can be taken down by a few mega-banks playing Casino with their investors' money and losing it all for them. I have a problem with them THEN asking for the government they hate so much(not to mention us "little folk") to bail them out, ONLY to give their higher ups record bonuses... but have no sense of guilt foreclosing on the same people that helped to bail them out.... but you wouldn't get that.

Yep... it's real easy for you to blame government for your woes. It's a little tougher to blame those that you seem to worship. You won't even give an inch, will you. You won't even say... Yeah... government is part of the problem, but so is our Banking monopolies and Corporations. You won't do that... Because you have such blinders on that the ONLY thing you see is Government.

Government? You can change... We have elections all the time. Greed and the quest for more power from you Heroes... You can't.

 

[Steelplate]

You can't buy Democrat votes by being fiscally responsible.

That's all it is.

What a crock. Democrats tried to do the Fiscally Responsible thing with Health Care but cowed down to you nutjobs screaming your heads off.

It's funny, because you really believe that, and it's sad, because you vote.

No... what I find funny is that you actually can't see the collusion between the Health Insurance Industry, Pharma, Med/Tech and the AMA. All of which invested heavily into screwing up the Health Care Program and you actually believe that the Status Quo was the way to go.

You are a Partisan idiot. The GOP loves people like you.... because they could tell you anything and you'd just drool and nod your head like the knuckledragger that you are.

 

[georgephillip]

Which useless liberal programs would you like to see gotten rid of? Social Security... a Program that people have been paying into all their lives? Medicare? Much the same.

Welfare? with a $14T deficit, you are going to axe a program that allows our most helpless people live a bare bones existence... to save $22B?

Unemployment? Ok... this one I might be able to agree with... Bring the jobs back and bring those Real wages with them. Then we'll talk about that one.

Health Care Reform? Once again... I might be able to agree... IF.... we go to a single payer system.... or at least add a Public Option to the current system. Imagine if small businesses wouldn't have to insure their employees anymore and the cost was spread across every taxpayer in America.... That would stimulate growth and Competition... But Big Business doesn't REALLY want Competition... so they fight against it with a bunch of flag waving and cries of Socialism.

Health care reform could have started with removing three words from the 1965 Medicare Act.
Citizens over sixty-five would have become citizens (period)

Obviously the best way to reform an unsustainable entitlement program is to add hundreds of millions of additional recipients. LOL!

Obviously the best reform is the cost-plus patriotism on display in the Pentagon.

 

[Steelplate]

Which useless liberal programs would you like to see gotten rid of? Social Security... a Program that people have been paying into all their lives? Medicare? Much the same.

Welfare? with a $14T deficit, you are going to axe a program that allows our most helpless people live a bare bones existence... to save $22B?

Unemployment? Ok... this one I might be able to agree with... Bring the jobs back and bring those Real wages with them. Then we'll talk about that one.

Health Care Reform? Once again... I might be able to agree... IF.... we go to a single payer system.... or at least add a Public Option to the current system. Imagine if small businesses wouldn't have to insure their employees anymore and the cost was spread across every taxpayer in America.... That would stimulate growth and Competition... But Big Business doesn't REALLY want Competition... so they fight against it with a bunch of flag waving and cries of Socialism.

Health care reform could have started with removing three words from the 1965 Medicare Act.
Citizens over sixty-five would have become citizens (period)

Obviously the best way to reform an unsustainable entitlement program is to add hundreds of millions of additional recipients. LOL!

Yeah... You don't understand why though... You're too dumb.... or short sighted, can't quite figure it out. It would have ended the Collusion in The Medical Industry. Same should be done with our College Education system. Stop this bullshit of Neverending tuition hikes.

Once again... why would big business be against it? Because of the impact on those poor Insurance companies? Hell it would mean less that they would have to put out and Business isn't afraid of cannibalizing their own any other time to make more money.

I'll tell you why? Power over labor. If Employers control the Health Care benefits... they control the employee. It encourages employees(all but the MOST Courageous) to stay put, even if they're not happy. Because they have a family to think about... what if one of their kids got really sick? If that was no longer an issue... more employees would be willing to take the risk of starting their own business that competes with their old employer.

Same with Education(which is pretty much my opinion...and I admit I COULD be wrong). Why don't employers train for specific jobs anymore and require degrees? Because a kid with $100K of debt is a scared and motivated employee... and the business has that power over them too.

I just wish you guys would take the paranoia that you have against government(and I admit... some of it is valid) and turn that Critical eye towards business too. I mean, you really don't think that Big Business thinks this way?

I mean Jesus... you have companies taking "Dead Peasant" insurance out on their own employees and name themselves as the sole beneficiary as a gamble that if one of them dies while employed.. they get a big payout.

C'mon...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Health care reform could have started with removing three words from the 1965 Medicare Act.
Citizens over sixty-five would have become citizens (period)

Obviously the best way to reform an unsustainable entitlement program is to add hundreds of millions of additional recipients. LOL!

Obviously the best reform is the cost-plus patriotism on display in the Pentagon.

The Pentagon doesn't have $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
I wonder how high that would be if we added a few hundred million new recipients?

 

[Wiseacre]

If you could guarantee that healthcare costs in a single payer system would be capped at a certain percentage of GDP, and that an overrun in one year would have to be made up in the next, I'd be okay with it. That would include Medicare and Medicaid, drugs for seniors, docfix, everything. A surplus could also be carried over, as if that could happen.

One way or another, HC costs have got to be contained. Frankly, I don't think the federal gov't should be involved at all, it should be a state issue.

 

[Steelplate]

If you could guarantee that healthcare costs in a single payer system would be capped at a certain percentage of GDP, and that an overrun in one year would have to be made up in the next, I'd be okay with it. That would include Medicare and Medicaid, drugs for seniors, docfix, everything. A surplus could also be carried over, as if that could happen.

One way or another, HC costs have got to be contained. Frankly, I don't think the federal gov't should be involved at all, it should be a state issue.

It would include Medicare and Medicaid and the rest of which you speak... because they would no longer exist. It would all be one system.

States don't have the power or the resources to do it. If it was something small.. I'd agree. but this is a monstrosity.

I know one of the gripes about it is innovation. But maybe it's time that our Med/Tech and Pharma people start getting other countries to help pay for that innovation... not just us. A new drug comes out and we pay for all that R&D, while people across the border and across the globe get the name brand or generics for that same new med at a small fraction of the cost.

If you really want to say "why should I have to pay?" Like so many people do because there is some of our population that will always be low income workers. Ask it in that regard. Now... do I want a 3rd world country like Ethiopia to pay the exact same amount? No. But just about every country in Europe can...China Can... Japan Can... Russia Can... and a host of other countries.

We can't afford this shit anymore.

 

[georgephillip]

Obviously the best way to reform an unsustainable entitlement program is to add hundreds of millions of additional recipients. LOL!

Obviously the best reform is the cost-plus patriotism on display in the Pentagon.

The Pentagon doesn't have $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
I wonder how high that would be if we added a few hundred million new recipients?

Let's ask Bernie

"The United States is the only major nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care as right to its people. Meanwhile, we spend about twice as much per capita on health care with worse results than others that spend far less,' Sanders explained Tuesday, as he announced plans to introduce the American Health Security Act of 2011, would provide federal guidelines and strong minimum standards for states to administer single-payer health care programs.

"'It is time that we bring about a fundamental transformation of the American health care system.

"'It is time for us to end private, for-profit participation in delivering basic coverage.

"'It is time for the United States to provide a Medicare-for-all single-payer health coverage program.'

"Sanders' plan is the right response to America's health-care crisis -- and any country where tens of millions of citizens lack health-care coverage, where tends of millions more lack adequate coverage and where costs are skyrocketing because of insurance-company profiteering has a crisis."

The answer to your question depends on how much effective health care depends on private profit.

Cut Medicare? No Way! Make It "Medicare for All"! | Common Dreams

 

[Steelplate]

Obviously the best way to reform an unsustainable entitlement program is to add hundreds of millions of additional recipients. LOL!

Obviously the best reform is the cost-plus patriotism on display in the Pentagon.

The Pentagon doesn't have $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
I wonder how high that would be if we added a few hundred million new recipients?

I read somewhere... I can't remember where... so go ahead, call me a liar in advance... I'm used to it.

That the Pentagon's share of those "unfunded liabilities" is somewhere between 20-25T.

Eisenhower warned us about the military Industrial Complex... and he was right on.