Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[daveman]

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.

Ironic, considering all I ever see from you is leftist talking points. No, I'm sure it's just coincidence that every other "independent thinker" arrived at the exact same conclusions you have.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Left thinks that the Government IS the US economy

 

[daveman]

The Left thinks that the Government IS the US economy

That's because deep down they think all money belongs to the government, and the government out of the goodness of their hearts lets us keep some of it.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The Left thinks that the Government IS the US economy

and that all money belongs to the gov't

It is strange how the Left calls for "liberty", "democracy", "freedom" always
come with giving more power to the state

Funny how that works
It is amazing the US grew at all before all this modern gov't intervention



Rubio says it best
He must be stopped comrades!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkFIXdby4Cs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkFIXdby4Cs[/ame]

 

[Neotrotsky]

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.

For some on the Left
it is a "pied piper syndrome"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wealth is not a national resource.[...]

Wealth is the sum of your efforts and endeavors translated into a medium of exchange. Saying that wealth should be stolen from one person to be given to another is no different than stating that one person should be 'compelled' into servitude for another. Taxes are a necessity to pay for those things that we share. In order for a road to be built you need to pay taxes or we would all need to go out and build that road. That is not a case of stealing from one and giving to another. These wealth redistribution wishes on the left are another thing entirely.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

The income tax rates shown above existed in proportion with the state of the U.S. economy during the same periods. The Nation was in excellent economic health from the 50s through to the 80s. Unemployment was very low, the poverty rate was negligible, business and industry were thriving, there were lots of millionaires (but very few billionaires), the middle class was happy and comfortable and the future seemed bright.

Then came Reaganomics, a major component of which was tax reduction, and the economy declined in perfect harmony with the above figures. Today, while the official tax rate is 35%, the loopholes effected by the Bush Administration has enabled the highest income levels to pay an average of just 7% in taxes, which is the lowest rate in our history. And look at the state of our economy.

Reaganomics brought about the most significant redistribution of wealth in our history. The wealth of middle and lower class Americans has steadily declined since the 80s while the wealth of the upper economic class has steadily, and massively, increased. What Reagan deceptively referred to as "trickle-down" economics is in fact a highly successful trickle-up scheme which is pushing the U.S. into third world status.

In addition to that, what would you call the bailout of the banking and finance industries with taxpayer money if not the most massive redistribution of wealth in our history?

So just what redistribution are you talking about?

In 1988 the top rate was 28%.

Excellent economic health from the 50s to the 80s? LOL!
You must not be familiar with Jimmy Carter.
He's a lot like Obama.

If you have any proof of your 7% claim, please post a link. Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The thing about economic history is that one has to include it all to make sense of it.

Note how the top tax rates dropping ended up giving us a depression?

OMG! That's funny.

Note how the top tax rates dropped and once again we found ourselves in something approaching a depression in 2008?

The top rate is 25% higher than in 1988, (35% compared to 28%), why don't we have full employment yet? LOL!

 

[bripat9643]

The thing about economic history is that one has to include it all to make sense of it.

Note how the top tax rates dropping ended up giving us a depression?

Duh . . . Wrong! The crushing tax rates Hoover and FDR imposed gave us the Depression. Artificial credit expansion by the federal reserve caused the stock market panic of 1929. But that would have only led to a short but sharp recession if it wasn't for all the counter productive economic policies of the Hoover and FDR administrations. The record clearly shows that low tax rates lead to a booming economy and high tax rates lead to extended unemployment.

Note how the top tax rates dropped and once again we found ourselves in something approaching a depression in 2008?

Only idiots don't understand that the sub-prime mortgage debacle caused the recession, not low tax rates. Once again, government interference in credit markets is responsible.

Note how in order to prevent the BANSTERS" solvency crises from turning into a real depression the BUSH II administration had to come to the rescue, and the Obma Admin had to follow up with still more TARP responses?

I notice that you love to beg the question and assume what you have yet to prove.

Apparently our friend Bripat doesn't quite understand the connection between income and wealth distribution, monetarism and its effects on the macro-economy.

That's really not his fault.

I understand it far better than you. I also understand that your whole conception of reality is founded on a vast collection of logical fallacies.

Macro-economics is a damned hard thing to get one's head around. Even the people who have devoted their lives to the study of macro cannot arrive at a consensus for how it works, or how we can control things when it (the macro-economy) stops working.

What you meant to say is that no matter how well proven the facts are, paid government propagandists will always dispute the fats that discredit the government's incessant drive to take more of our money and freedom from us.

 

[georgephillip]

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

If you're counting on a socialist for an honest answer, I think I see where you went wrong.

Do you see Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals as a way of enriching the same private insurance companies that fund his election campaigns?

"Physicians for a National Health Program, the movement of doctors and medical students for real reform, welcomed the national legislation.

“'At a time when the airwaves are filled with talk about cutting or even ending Medicare,' said Dr. Garrett Adams, PNHP president, 'Senator Sanders has boldly stepped forward with the seemingly paradoxical proposition that the best way to financially strengthen the Medicare program is to upgrade it and expand it to cover everyone.'”

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

 

[georgephillip]

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.

The Pentagon's share of the $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities is $20-$25 trillion?
I find that hard to believe but if you have anything that shows military and ex-military will use that much medical care, I'd be happy to look it over.

What makes you think the missing money was used for medical care?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

If you're counting on a socialist for an honest answer, I think I see where you went wrong.

Do you see Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals as a way of enriching the same private insurance companies that fund his election campaigns?

"Physicians for a National Health Program, the movement of doctors and medical students for real reform, welcomed the national legislation.

“'At a time when the airwaves are filled with talk about cutting or even ending Medicare,' said Dr. Garrett Adams, PNHP president, 'Senator Sanders has boldly stepped forward with the seemingly paradoxical proposition that the best way to financially strengthen the Medicare program is to upgrade it and expand it to cover everyone.'”

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

I see Bernie's proposals as a way of bankrupting the country.

 

[Neotrotsky]

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

If you're counting on a socialist for an honest answer, I think I see where you went wrong.

Do you see Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals as a way of enriching the same private insurance companies that fund his election campaigns?

"Physicians for a National Health Program, the movement of doctors and medical students for real reform, welcomed the national legislation.

“'At a time when the airwaves are filled with talk about cutting or even ending Medicare,' said Dr. Garrett Adams, PNHP president, 'Senator Sanders has boldly stepped forward with the seemingly paradoxical proposition that the best way to financially strengthen the Medicare program is to upgrade it and expand it to cover everyone.'”

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

The best gov't is one that uses its' power to keep or make the markets more competitive and open, Not centrally planned.
What we have now, created by both Republicans and Democrats, intensified under Papa Obama Care is a from of statist crony capitalism.

I see Ryan's plan as an attempt to reintroduce competitive market forces back into the equation.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwtiZkN2jps]YouTube - ‪The REAL Agenda Project America The Beautiful‬‏[/ame]



"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with most unnecessary attention but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of man who have folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. "
— Adam Smith

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The Pentagon's share of the $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities is $20-$25 trillion?
I find that hard to believe but if you have anything that shows military and ex-military will use that much medical care, I'd be happy to look it over.

What makes you think the missing money was used for medical care?

I'm talking about unfunded liabilities in Medicare. That's medical care. Steelplate made a claim about those liabilities. The burden is on him, not me.

 

[Too Tall]

If someone twice your size and half your age beats you senseless and transfers all the money in your pockets into his, will you bleat "life ain't fair" from your hospital bed?

The richest 1% of Americans earned about 9% of annual US income in 1979.
They earn over 20% today and control about 40% of national wealth.
And they have seen their "fair share" of both increase since 2008.

I don't believe the rich have earned all that money.
They have bribed politicians to lower their tax rates to acquire some of it.
They have manipulated the Federal Reserve and commodity markets for some of it.
And they've spiked unemployment to levels unseen in generations for some of it.

This is a damn war.
Why are you afraid to fight back?

Well, if you DON'T BELIEVE the rich have EARNED all that money, you could call Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and a few others who are the RICHEST Democrat Representatives, AND ASK THEM.
You are showing your Liberal Red my dear.

From the OP:

"The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds..."

There is no shortage of millionaires in the US Congress.
On both sides of the aisle.

My solution is to FLUSH Republicans AND Democrats from DC by the hundreds (starting in the White House) in November of 2012.

What's yours?

If you want to flush all R's and D's and the President, which is impossible, who do you propose to take their place?

 

[MikeK]

If you have any proof of your 7% claim, please post a link. Thanks.

The following are just a few examples but the diminutive post-loophole rates are fairly typical. The average is 7%. The main point is to discard the notion that any corporation or individual capable of hiring a good accountant or tax lawyer is not paying the full 35% rate -- or anywhere near it. In fact, Exxon/Mobil not only paid zero tax last year, they received a subsidy from government.

(Excerpt)

[...]

At larger companies, which are better positioned to find tax havens in foreign countries or to take generous deductions for aging equipment, the tax bill can be substantially less. Over the past five years, Boeing paid income taxes at a rate of 4.5 percent; Southwest Airlines, 6.3 percent; and Yahoo, 7 percent.

And those payments keep getting lower. Over the past three years, Google has slashed its tax payments by more than $3 billion, paying just 2.4 percent in taxes last year, after shifting most of its non-U.S. profits to Bermuda. Facebook is planning a similar strategy, according to corporate filings.

[...]

(Close)

Lowering corporate tax rate may raise taxes - SignOnSanDiego.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you have any proof of your 7% claim, please post a link. Thanks.

The following are just a few examples but the diminutive post-loophole rates are fairly typical. The average is 7%. The main point is to discard the notion that any corporation or individual capable of hiring a good accountant or tax lawyer is not paying the full 35% rate -- or anywhere near it. In fact, Exxon/Mobil not only paid zero tax last year, they received a subsidy from government.

(Excerpt)

[...]

At larger companies, which are better positioned to find tax havens in foreign countries or to take generous deductions for aging equipment, the tax bill can be substantially less. Over the past five years, Boeing paid income taxes at a rate of 4.5 percent; Southwest Airlines, 6.3 percent; and Yahoo, 7 percent.

And those payments keep getting lower. Over the past three years, Google has slashed its tax payments by more than $3 billion, paying just 2.4 percent in taxes last year, after shifting most of its non-U.S. profits to Bermuda. Facebook is planning a similar strategy, according to corporate filings.

[...]

(Close)

Lowering corporate tax rate may raise taxes - SignOnSanDiego.com

Not sure where you got your Exxon numbers, Yahoo Finance shows they had earnings before taxes of $52.9 billion and that they paid income taxes of $21.5 billion.
Looks like 40.6% to me.

XOM Income Statement | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

If you have a link to the subsidy they supposedly received, that would be great.

 

[Susan45]

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.

You're all about keeping the status quo for social spending.
Ya know what? Me too. How our views differ is you want the programs to remain the same. You believe slapping more taxes on everyone will do the trick.
This is the same as putting a band aid on a laceration.
The facts are clear, Social Security and Medicare will be non functional in about 25 years. Social entitlements gobble up 55% of the federal budget.
Now, the goal is to fix these programs. Not wreck them.
First with AFDC WIC Medicare and Medicaid, enforcement of fraud statues MUST be paramount. Eliminate the waste and fraud. Arrest and convict those who are gaming the system. Get rid of the bureaucratic red tape and other nightmares that are associated with obtaining. Dramatically reduce the number of federal employees associated with the above mentioned programs and hire enforcement people to weed out the cheaters.
Cut adminstrative costs to no more than 20%. Currently the federal government spends nearly 50 cents of every dollar to administer welfare and WIC.
Fewer people will receive benefits. As it should be. The goal is to ensure that only the truly needy receive. Those gaming the system will be found out and made to pay back every dime they have taken.
Social Security is JUNK. The whole program is in need of TNT to blow it up and build another one in it's place.
My idea is to start a fund similar to the Canadian pension system. Once a person begins working, they and their employer each contribute 4% of their wages. The money is held be a government controlled non partisan "bank". The money is to be untouched for ANY reason. Once the person retires, he is issued checks over the course of the rest of his life. Should the pensioner die, his heirs receive the money. Should the worker become disabled , he begins receiving benefits after it is determined he is medically unfit to work.
There is no income ceiling as there is with Social Security. If one earns a million per year, they pay 4%...Limitless.
Since there is an account set up for each person, there is no need to be concerned about the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security. Oh, administrative costs would be a 1% charge to each account.

I can't speak to medicare or medicaid. I just don't know enough. But I can speak to SS and see that you have no idea what SS is. It is not a pension plan. It is an insurance plan which means that like other insurance plans you do not necessarily get all your money back. But it also means that you might get back more then you paid in. It covers the disabled, survivors, pensioners. It is not a welfare program.

You say SS has about 25 more years. It has worked just fine and dandy for over 75 yrs. with millions of people happy with it. It has never missed a check for the millions that depend on it. It's possible you don't want to go by history and just parrot talking points from people that would love to get their hands on the money. I just thank God we were able to stop the privatization that Bush was pushing not so many years ago.

SS has admin costs of about 3% total. That means that the public gets back about 97 cents for ever dollar collected from them. There is NO program public or private that can live up to that. NONE

By law the federal government cannot just take the SS money. It must borrow it and issue t-bonds and pay the interest into the SS program. Maybe you don't except that the government will back up it's bonds. I don't have that same fear. SS has been collecting and using the interest.

In 1983 Reagan was told about the baby boomers and that the SS program would run out of money faster then they anticipated due to all those babies. He put together a committee and they came up with raising the tax (fica). From 1983 until just recently the SS administration have been collecting more money then they have paid out.

All of us except the rich pay in about 6% with our employers matching that. Then there is a cap. So if you earn $100,000 you will pay abut 12%. Then you hit the cap and if you earn $200,000 you still only pay the 12% of the first $100,000, or 6% total on the $200,000. It wouldn't bother me at all if those folks had to pay the full 12%, I did for most of my life. You probably do too.

There are times it pays to get away from the talking points and really find out for yourself what is going on. SS has a wonderful website and I urge you to go do your own checking.

Calling SS a ponzi scheme is just a talking point and if I were you I would wonder why someone could make such a BS lie.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wealth is not a national resource.[...]

Wealth is the sum of your efforts and endeavors translated into a medium of exchange. Saying that wealth should be stolen from one person to be given to another is no different than stating that one person should be 'compelled' into servitude for another. Taxes are a necessity to pay for those things that we share. In order for a road to be built you need to pay taxes or we would all need to go out and build that road. That is not a case of stealing from one and giving to another. These wealth redistribution wishes on the left are another thing entirely.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

The income tax rates shown above existed in proportion with the state of the U.S. economy during the same periods. The Nation was in excellent economic health from the 50s through to the 80s. Unemployment was very low, the poverty rate was negligible, business and industry were thriving, there were lots of millionaires (but very few billionaires), the middle class was happy and comfortable and the future seemed bright.

Then came Reaganomics, a major component of which was tax reduction, and the economy declined in perfect harmony with the above figures. Today, while the official tax rate is 35%, the loopholes effected by the Bush Administration has enabled the highest income levels to pay an average of just 7% in taxes, which is the lowest rate in our history. And look at the state of our economy.

Reaganomics brought about the most significant redistribution of wealth in our history. The wealth of middle and lower class Americans has steadily declined since the 80s while the wealth of the upper economic class has steadily, and massively, increased. What Reagan deceptively referred to as "trickle-down" economics is in fact a highly successful trickle-up scheme which is pushing the U.S. into third world status.

In addition to that, what would you call the bailout of the banking and finance industries with taxpayer money if not the most massive redistribution of wealth in our history?

So just what redistribution are you talking about?

The facts are the tax rates. The rest of you post is your biased opinion.
The fact that wealthier people get to keep more of their income has no bearing on budget deficits being run up by Capitol Hill and of course The Obamessiah.
Taxes are not too low. Government spends too much. Politicians write budgets with the knowledge of the economy. Time and again our elected officials choose to ignore the economic facts of life and spend like morons anyway.
That's OUR problem?
I'm by no means wealthy. However, if government confiscates more money from the upper incomes, the rest of us will pay the price. No one's income is safe with Obama in the White House.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Sadly, it is more than a talking point

Def:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors.


There are parallels. The difference is that "technically" the US pays interest on the fund.
The actual return on yous SS "investment" is terrible due to all the pay out benefits the politicians have added over the years.
During the baby boom working years, the money was flowing in and their payouts were years down the road. So the politicians did what they do when there is "extra" money around,
they spent it.

However, that interest comes from us, taxpayers or investors, if you care. In effect, we are paying ourselves.

Note, if growth of our productivity and population is able to keep growing as it had in the past, SS might be doable with some adjustments. However, there is the rub. If our growth and productivity slows down then SS will end up being more like a Ponzi scheme than not.

Really, the best thing is to take it out of the politicians hands as much as possible
For example
-means test it - no reason for Bill Gates to get SS checks but he will
-Allow people to invest their own money. Even invested in T bills, the taxpayer would get a better return on their money

After all, what is wrong for people to have more control over their own money?

 

[georgephillip]

If you're counting on a socialist for an honest answer, I think I see where you went wrong.

Do you see Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals as a way of enriching the same private insurance companies that fund his election campaigns?

"Physicians for a National Health Program, the movement of doctors and medical students for real reform, welcomed the national legislation.

“'At a time when the airwaves are filled with talk about cutting or even ending Medicare,' said Dr. Garrett Adams, PNHP president, 'Senator Sanders has boldly stepped forward with the seemingly paradoxical proposition that the best way to financially strengthen the Medicare program is to upgrade it and expand it to cover everyone.'”

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

I see Bernie's proposals as a way of bankrupting the country.

Bush beat him to it.