Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

[drsmith1072]

ehhhh.. wrong answer, asswipe

You see... many of us want the government out of marriage and want every person treated the same in terms of inheritance, taxation, power of attorney in emergencies, etc (you know, things government does have a right with its nose in) for any recognized family couple.... being against gay people being deemed 'married', forcing acceptance, etc is quite different....

Nice try

Actually no, it's not different. Merely stating "wrong answer" then spewing a line of bs right wing talking points claiming there is a difference while failing to show one is not a valid response.

The right loves the DOMA and that is nothing more than an attempt to force acceptance of their myopic view on marriage. Therefore, claiming forced acceptance as if it's a bad thing based solely on the fact that the item being accepted runs counter to your predisposed opinons is hardly a valid counter to what was said.

I am not forced to accept choices of others in this country... that is, unless it is gay marriage...

What I stated is far from BS... it is the way that equality can be preserved in government in relation to 'married' people, family couples, civil unions, or whatever else you wish to call arrangements between 2 grown adults to form a family unit

People can be asked not to discriminate against, tolerate, or whatever else... but forced to accept someone else's lifestyle choice, that is not the business of government

WOW!! DOMA is the same type of forced acceptance and yet on one hand the right gladly accepts it because it is line with their predisposed opinions and on the other they are against "forced acceptance" of gay marriage because they don't agree with it. LOL

Oh and in case you missed it, due to the fact that we are a nation of laws we are all forced to accept things we may not agree with through the laws passed by the choices of others., i.e. the government.

 

[boedicca]

[Duh....That taxing the rich CANNOT balance the budget.

Take every penny of income from those that make >$250K and you have $1000B left to cover.
Take every penny of income from tose that make >150K and you have $636B left to cover.

What now?

This is typical Glenn Beck blackboard-style trickery, which makes sense to those whose partisan bias makes them wish to believe it and whose reasoning skills equip them with little choice. It is equal to theorizing that the net holdings of the average person is insufficient to immediately settle all their debts, which might include a student loan, a mortgage and a car loan.

Balancing the budget means paying down the deficit to an easily manageable level, or eliminating it entirely. Of course this cannot be done in one immediate pass as your convenient little formula demonstrates. It will take time, as will paying off the average American's total debt. And increasing the tax burden of the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels will unquestionably facilitate that purpose.

The simple fact of the matter is had the progressive tax rate that existed before Reagan commenced its reduction remained in force we would not have the level of debt we are now burdened with.

How about we first roll back federal spending to 2007 levels instead? That would wipe out nearly the entire deficit.

 

[drsmith1072]

Actually no, it's not different. Merely stating "wrong answer" then spewing a line of bs right wing talking points claiming there is a difference while failing to show one is not a valid response.

The right loves the DOMA and that is nothing more than an attempt to force acceptance of their myopic view on marriage. Therefore, claiming forced acceptance as if it's a bad thing based solely on the fact that the item being accepted runs counter to your predisposed opinons is hardly a valid counter to what was said.

I am not forced to accept choices of others in this country... that is, unless it is gay marriage...

What I stated is far from BS... it is the way that equality can be preserved in government in relation to 'married' people, family couples, civil unions, or whatever else you wish to call arrangements between 2 grown adults to form a family unit

People can be asked not to discriminate against, tolerate, or whatever else... but forced to accept someone else's lifestyle choice, that is not the business of government

Not is it the business of Gubmint to foist LAW that portends to do such. QUOTE]

The DOMA which is praised by the religious right is proof that the right believes it is the business of the government to do just that. Especially when the right wants the government to force acceptance of a lifestyle they choose to support.

 

[MikeK]

Tax the Rich! Tax the Millionaires! This scheme is right out of the socialist play book of social justice. Let's define social justice. "Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution." Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is known as the Robin Hood effect (steal from the rich to give to the poor.)

As with all principles steeped in the deviant teachings found in the communist manifesto, social justice is doomed to failure. If you take away the rewards for people to risk their wealth in entrepreneurial endeavors you put a stopper on economic growth.

Rich people have disposable income to invest in business. This produces jobs. Poor people don't have the resources to do this. Jobs produce wealth for the worker, and the entrepreneur. No jobs no wealth. These are the basic tenets of Capitalism. Capitalism is the reason that the USA is the strongest economy in the world. Capitalism is the reason that Americans enjoy unprecedented quality of life.

Destroying capitalism by implementing socialistic ideology can be likened to killing the goose that laid golden eggs. The search for successful socialistic societies is a fools errand. A successful socialistic society only exits between the ears of a progressive, centrist, socialist, liberal, or communist of questionable intellect.

The flaw in your (indoctrinated) reasoning is the implied notion that the world can only accommodate one system or the other and that refusing to accept laissez faire capitalism will necessarily foster communism. But the fact is a correctly balanced blend of capitalism and socialism produces an optimal situation, as the period of exemplary progress and prosperity which existed during the years between the 1940s and 1980s clearly shows. Those were the most productive and economically successful years in America's history. Those exemplary decades plainly demonstrated the positive social and economic effects of imposing prudent socialist controls onto a capitalist system.

Your (indoctrinated) reasoning presumes that equitable distribution of a nation's wealth means equal distribution and that prudent control over the accumulation of wealth resources will impoverish the rich. But that didn't happen in the four decades which hosted the rise of the middle class and made America the envy of the world and it won't happen now. The only effects of equitable redistribution of America's wealth resources is the rich will be made a bit less rich and the integrity of the Nation will be vastly improved.

The idea that capitalism, ipso facto, is the reason for the success of the American nation is corporatist propaganda. America's success is predicated on its resources, which eminently includes its human resources, the common people, those who labored, bled and died to build and defend it. Capitalism concerns itself with profit. Socialism concerns itself with people. Neither concept should prevail but the two should inhabit an acceptable common ground, which necessarily calls for equitable distribution of the Nation's wealth resource.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Neither concept should prevail but the two should inhabit an acceptable common ground, which necessarily calls for equitable distribution of the Nation's wealth resource.

"Equitable? According to whom?

I've aleways been facinated by the argument that, somehow, those that 'have' owe something to those that 'have not', and that it is the proper role of government to make sure the 'have nots' collect.

 

[MikeK]

How about we first roll back federal spending to 2007 levels instead? That would wipe out nearly the entire deficit.

I am as opposed to wasteful spending as anyone.

The most prominent examples of wasteful spending that occurs to me are the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and the counterproductive War on Drugs. What specific examples do you have in mind?

 

[boedicca]

How about we first roll back federal spending to 2007 levels instead? That would wipe out nearly the entire deficit.

I am as opposed to wasteful spending as anyone.

The most prominent examples of wasteful spending that occurs to me are the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and the counterproductive War on Drugs. What specific examples do you have in mind?

I have the example of spending in absolute dollar terms as well as a ratio of a % of GDP increasing by 25% since the Pelosi-Reid era, with a dramatic ramp once Obama gained power.

The Stimulus package has been used to dramatically increase the baseline of federal spending across the board.

Other areas that need to be addressed are Medicare and SS. The majority of federal outlays are now entitlements which are "untouchable". It's time to make that touchable. We should have a high sense of urgency to reform these programs before interest rates spike up and our annual debt service (interest on the debt) is in the range of $1T+.

 

[georgephillip]

Just because I like repeating myself:
You could take EVERY PENNY as taxes from those that make >250k and you'd still have a $1000B deficit.
Now what?

And your point is?

Duh....That taxing the rich CANNOT balance the budget.

Take every penny of income from those that make >$250K and you have $1000B left to cover.
Take every penny of income from tose that make >150K and you have $636B left to cover.

What now?

The current budget deficit (~$1.3 trillion) is approximately 13.5% of Gross National Income (~$9.7 trillion)

What now?

 

[MikeK]

Neither concept should prevail but the two should inhabit an acceptable common ground, which necessarily calls for equitable distribution of the Nation's wealth resource.

"Equitable? According to whom?

I'm content with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's concept of equitable as manifest in his New Deal, which imposed a progressive tax rate with a 91% upper bracket. That situation prevailed from the mid-1940s through to the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan chose to commence the changes that led directly to the present situation.

I've aleways been facinated by the argument that, somehow, those that 'have' owe someting to those that 'have not', and that it is the proper role of government to make sure the 'have nots' collect.

There are millions of American workers who are compromised by such things as pension loss, wage stagnation, unemployment, exportation of jobs to foreign workers, etc. Millions more are being made homeless by shady maneuvers in the banking industry. Still others are being economically strangled by usurious credit rates. These are not freeloaders, slackers, welfare cheats, etc. They are for the most part decent, hard-working people who are having the rug pulled out from under them by greedy, scheming CEOs, bankers and Wall Street speculators who are amassing fortunes in the hundreds of millions of dollars and employing that excessive wealth to corrupt politicians who accommodate their schemes.

Somebody owes these people something and there is nothing unreasonable about seeking an accounting. I believe it must come as the result of a return to the pre-Reagan tax structure and restoration of the regulations that prevented the kind of schemes that put us in the spot we're in today.

 

[georgephillip]

[Duh....That taxing the rich CANNOT balance the budget.

Take every penny of income from those that make >$250K and you have $1000B left to cover.
Take every penny of income from tose that make >150K and you have $636B left to cover.

What now?

This is typical Glenn Beck blackboard-style trickery, which makes sense to those whose partisan bias makes them wish to believe it and whose reasoning skills equip them with little choice. It is equal to theorizing that the net holdings of the average person is insufficient to immediately settle all their debts, which might include a student loan, a mortgage and a car loan.

Balancing the budget means paying down the deficit to an easily manageable level, or eliminating it entirely. Of course this cannot be done in one immediate pass as your convenient little formula demonstrates. It will take time, as will paying off the average American's total debt. And increasing the tax burden of the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels will unquestionably facilitate that purpose.

The simple fact of the matter is had the progressive tax rate that existed before Reagan commenced its reduction remained in force we would not have the level of debt we are now burdened with.

How about we first roll back federal spending to 2007 levels instead? That would wipe out nearly the entire deficit.

Would you label the call to cut spending during a recession inherently deflationary?

Or maybe the Great Recession has already passed for you?

 

[georgephillip]

Neither concept should prevail but the two should inhabit an acceptable common ground, which necessarily calls for equitable distribution of the Nation's wealth resource.

"Equitable? According to whom?

I'm content with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's concept of equitable as manifest in his New Deal, which imposed a progressive tax rate with a 91% upper bracket. That situation prevailed from the mid-1940s through to the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan chose to commence the changes that led directly to the present situation.

I've aleways been facinated by the argument that, somehow, those that 'have' owe someting to those that 'have not', and that it is the proper role of government to make sure the 'have nots' collect.

There are millions of American workers who are compromised by such things as pension loss, wage stagnation, unemployment, exportation of jobs to foreign workers, etc. Millions more are being made homeless by shady maneuvers in the banking industry. Still others are being economically strangled by usurious credit rates. These are not freeloaders, slackers, welfare cheats, etc. They are for the most part decent, hard-working people who are having the rug pulled out from under them by greedy, scheming CEOs, bankers and Wall Street speculators who are amassing fortunes in the hundreds of millions of dollars and employing that excessive wealth to corrupt politicians who accommodate their schemes.

Somebody owes these people something and there is nothing unreasonable about seeking an accounting. I believe it must come as the result of a return to the pre-Reagan tax structure and restoration of the regulations that prevented the kind of schemes that put us in the spot we're in today.

And today's elected Republicans AND Democrats will turn on their own children before they turn on Wall Street, Mike.

The accounting you and I are looking for won't happen by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican.

It might happen after hundreds of Republicans AND Democrats have been FLUSHED from DC in a single news cycle.

"What is being billed as public debt began as the private debt of financial speculators who offloaded it onto the public.

"The governments that bailed out these insolvent speculators then became insolvent themselves; but the bailed-out banks, rather than lending a helping hand in return, have demanded their pound of flesh, with payment in full.

"The perpetrators are blaming the victims and insisting on 'fiscal responsibility.'

"Wall Street bankers are dictating the terms of repayment for debts they themselves incurred."

Ellen Brown: Who Will Pay: Wall Street or Main Street?

 

[boedicca]

Here's the Answer to Solving The Budget Crisis...for one year:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...



A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion



Alright! Take that, fat cats! Our $1.412 trillion windfall has us covered for the next 141 days, or until...


iowahawk: Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Other areas that need to be addressed are Medicare and SS. The majority of federal outlays are now entitlements which are "untouchable". It's time to make that touchable. We should have a high sense of urgency to reform these programs before interest rates spike up and our annual debt service (interest on the debt) is in the range of $1T+.

Reform these programs? In specifically what way?

These programs are the primary targets of the emerging corporatocracy. Their boy George Bush tried but failed to strike at these programs in '02 but I see they aren't giving up. They don't mention Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the drug war, but their propaganda machine is focused on Social Security and Medicare.

May I ask how old you are? And if you have parents or grandparents who are receiving Social Security and Medicare services?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And your point is?

Duh....That taxing the rich CANNOT balance the budget.

Take every penny of income from those that make >$250K and you have $1000B left to cover.
Take every penny of income from tose that make >150K and you have $636B left to cover.

What now?

The current budget deficit (~$1.3 trillion) is approximately 13.5% of Gross National Income (~$9.7 trillion)

What now?

That's what -I- asked -you-. Your response does not meaningfully address the question.

Now that you have taken -all- the income from -everyone- making $150k or more, you still have a $636B deficit

How do you plan on taking care of that $636B?

 

[boedicca]

Actually, as Iowahawk has demonstrated, taking away all of the income of those making over $250K would result in $1.4T, so let's just seize everything over $200K and close the deficit!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Neither concept should prevail but the two should inhabit an acceptable common ground, which necessarily calls for equitable distribution of the Nation's wealth resource.

"Equitable? According to whom?

I'm content with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's concept of equitable as manifest in his New Deal,

I'm -sure- you are.
Show how this defitniion of "equitable" is sound, and is superior to all others.

I've always been fascinated by the argument that, somehow, those that 'have' owe someting to those that 'have not', and that it is the proper role of government to make sure the 'have nots' collect.

There are millions of American workers who are compromised by such things as pension loss, wage stagnation, unemployment, exportation of jobs to foreign workers, etc. Millions more are being made homeless by shady maneuvers in the banking industry. Still others are being economically strangled by usurious credit rates. These are not freeloaders, slackers, welfare cheats, etc. They are for the most part decent, hard-working people who are having the rug pulled out from under them by greedy, scheming CEOs, bankers and Wall Street speculators who are amassing fortunes in the hundreds of millions of dollars and employing that excessive wealth to corrupt politicians who accommodate their schemes.

So?
How does that equate to the 'haves' owing something to those that 'have not', and that it is the proper role of government to make sure the 'have nots' collect

Somebody owes these people something...

According to whom?
Based on what reasoning?
How is that reasoning sound?
How are they not responsible for themselves?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, as Iowahawk has demonstrated, taking away all of the income of those making over $250K would result in $1.4T, so let's just seize everything over $200K and close the deficit!

Not so.
The combined income of those making over $250k is only $673B.
Add to that the combined income of those making over $150K and you get $1314B.
BUT... these people already pay $537B in income taxes (almost 59% of the total income tax revenue), leaving $777B available to take.
This reduces a 1413B deficit to $636B
(FY2009 numbers)


So, unless you want to start confiscating the incomes of those making under $150k, to kill the deficit, you have to reduce spending. A Lot.

 

[georgephillip]

How about we first roll back federal spending to 2007 levels instead? That would wipe out nearly the entire deficit.

I am as opposed to wasteful spending as anyone.

The most prominent examples of wasteful spending that occurs to me are the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and the counterproductive War on Drugs. What specific examples do you have in mind?

I have the example of spending in absolute dollar terms as well as a ratio of a % of GDP increasing by 25% since the Pelosi-Reid era, with a dramatic ramp once Obama gained power.

The Stimulus package has been used to dramatically increase the baseline of federal spending across the board.

Other areas that need to be addressed are Medicare and SS. The majority of federal outlays are now entitlements which are "untouchable". It's time to make that touchable. We should have a high sense of urgency to reform these programs before interest rates spike up and our annual debt service (interest on the debt) is in the range of $1T+.

What role did a $13 trillion bailout of Wall Street play in that 25% increase in spending since the Pelosi-Reid era and its dramatic ramp once Obama gained power?

Any thoughts on why the financial speculators who made the Stimulus package necessary are largely getting off scot free or why they are still not paying any tax on the purchase and sale of their "financial products"?

Do you think Goldman Sachs's 2008 effective income tax rate of 1% poses a bigger threat to the US economy than Social Security?

Would you agree?

“It is increasingly becoming clear that the working majority around the world face a common enemy: an unproductive financial oligarchy that, like parasites, sucks the economic blood out of the working people, simply by trading and/or betting on claims of ownership. . . ."

Ellen Brown: Who Will Pay: Wall Street or Main Street?

 

[MikeK]

And today's elected Republicans AND Democrats will turn on their own children before they turn on Wall Street, Mike.

The accounting you and I are looking for won't happen by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican.

[...]

I don't disagree with that. The Republicans are totally owned by the corporatocracy and the Democrats are either corrupted or too timid to take a stand on anything. But what choice to we have? A vote for a third party candidate, or some independent write-in, is a vote for a Republican.

It's 7:58 PM and Obama just wrapped up his Libya speech. Whereas I once admired his poise and articulate delivery I am now weary of his style and his bullshit. He really isn't that much different from Bush. He just looks and sounds different.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[/QUOTE]

Clinton, in the background, reminding himself that if he's caught checking out any of the Bush girls, GWB will beat the living crap out of him.