Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
Michael Pinto
6328 Followers
Hugh Byrne
6443 Followers
John Donovan
5568 Followers
AngelWardriver
11953 Followers
melthornalApr 14, 2011
I read every comment here, you guys are quoting the goddamn television. That is all you are doing. What a waste of time.
Not one of you even mentioned the actual issues the country is facing. Not one of you brought up the role of government. Not one of you mentioned the credit crisis. Not one of you mentioned anything of meaning or substance on any level.
You are parroting sound bites from television and nationally syndicated radio. That is all. Do you even notice your arguments are vague and meaningless, or are you too blind trying to show off how much you believe you learned after listening to a 2 minute opinion segment on the local news network?
laborerApr 14, 2011
People need to turn off the radios and television, and turn on the civil discussion.
darthmeatloafApr 14, 2011
That's kind of hard when discussion about the national budget has become so partisan that it's impossible to have a discussion about it that remains even remotely civil...
JustSayNoPartyApr 14, 2011
And the sad thing is, that reflects what's going on in Washington. The two sides come out with the 'same as always' plans without a whiff of compromise.
darthmeatloafApr 14, 2011
I'd like it if someone could point out exactly when it was that politicians started being such uncomprosmising assh**es to each other.
laborerApr 14, 2011
If there were more local power, this wouldnt need to happen. Each state could have a semi-homogenous political culture, thereby allowing things to get done.
Why does this country need to create one-size-fits-all solutions? More independent parties and more power to state and local governments.
JustSayNoPartyApr 14, 2011
I honestly think there was more civility and negotiations when Tip Oneil, George Mitchell, George Bush Senior, Bob Dole, and others were in charge. They seemed more willing to reach across the aisle. I'd say the Hyper Partisanship really heated up when Clinton was elected.
Closed AccountApr 14, 2011
^ this.
Of course, you left out the part where the GOP did everything they could to dig up some type of dirt on Clinton and wasted the whole countries time and money trying to impeach him for an extramarital affair, but yeah, that's about when the hyper-partisanship began.
trdrstvApr 15, 2011
@philliesblunt
They brought up impeachment charges based on Perjury, which actually is relevant to a head of state unlike extra-marital affairs.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2011
Technicality. I know he perjured himself, but he did so because he lied about a blow job so his wife wouldn't find out. Why is that relevant to a congressional investigation unless you're just throwing everything at the wall in the hopes that something sticks?
jcnesApr 15, 2011
Maybe you guys aren't old enough to remember the partisanship when Reagan was in office, but I assure you, it was no more civil than when Clinton or Bush or Bush Jr. or Obama were elected.
I got news for you, when one side wins the presidency, he is now the arch-enemy of the other side, and they will do everything they can to make his life miserable.
Stop getting all misty-eyed about the good old days; nobody ever played nice. Ever.
laborerApr 14, 2011
The solution is not bi-partisanship between the two ruling parties, who have both been dominant for over the last 100+ years, it is the emergence of a third party movement, and then legislation to change the winner-takes-all system.
Vote third party.
rednipApr 15, 2011
We'd need to have instant run off voting for a third party to take root.
ShovelbabyApr 14, 2011
Where is your substantive comment?
kaelyiestaApr 14, 2011
I'll quote a book then to make things bearable:
"It is easier to show the disorder that must accompany reform than the order that should follow it. "
This is Bastiat describing the impossibility of predicting the wealth of ideas people can create if allowed to do so, in order to solve the wants of a society. He uses the word 'order' to mean the spontaneous organization of individuals to shape things. It is ultimately a warning against the easy statist notion that only what is seen is what occurs, forgetting the unseen loss. It is a refutation of the idea that any one person can know and plan the vast interaction of billions of people better than they themselves can.
I post it here because I cannot stand the easy claim that "if the government takes some amount of money, that will solve some lack of money elsewhere" because those who champion such theft blank out the fact that taking requires a source from which to plunder. The unforseen consequences of which are always ignored in favor of the central planners notion that that money could not be allocated any better by the vast numbers who were previously directing it.
omeezy4sheezyApr 15, 2011
Cool story bro, and you just pointed them out. Any solutions? Whats your take on the whole thing? Or are you just gonna mention s**t thats happened over the past four years as well?
ddissentApr 15, 2011
Well said ...
rattelerApr 16, 2011
You mean we're quoting TV with Facts instead of TV with FOX.
jdr3zdApr 14, 2011
That's way too logical. How dare you even suggest such a logical solution to the problem.
yurmutha412Apr 14, 2011
The CBO has stated that the Bush tax cuts, if left expire would save 700 billion over 10 years. The same CBO said the middle class tax cuts will cost 3 trillion over 10 years and Obama wants them permanent. It's not logical. The debt is projected to grow 9.3 trillion over the next 10 years. That's about .7 percent, not 75 percent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waveman56Apr 15, 2011
Yurmutha412; could you save me some time and give me some links that show that? I'd like to read up on it. Thanks
tre03Apr 15, 2011
Is anyone actually believing this? The article give no specific number except to say that we will save 75% in 5 year and 40% in 20 years. And really...do those number even make sense to anyone??? Also...how it raising taxes saving money?
chilidogsApr 19, 2011
Do you not know how links work? The article has several.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
tre03Apr 23, 2011
Are you really asking me if I know how links work? That's a pretty dumb question considering I would have needed to click on several links to even leave this comment. I wish some people would actually think about what they are asking before they make themselves look foolish.
The article linked above contains no numbers...and by the way does not contain the link you posted.
yurmutha412Apr 15, 2011
"Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners."
In other words, the part that affects the rich 2 percent will only save 700 billion over 10 years. These are the proposed savings by Obama. The other tax cuts affected people of much lesser means.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html
On a baseline prediction by the CBO the total cost from 2011 to 2020 is 24,000 billion. The 700 billion is only a small portion or 2.9 percent to be exact. Graph on bottom of this page:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter3.shtml
The middle class tax cuts, which Obama wants to maintain are projected to cost 3.27 billion by the CBO:
"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? As you can see from the table below, the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion."
Reality is that we need to cut expenses in the three major programs that are costing us the most, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. What we do on these taxes will only help or hinder those expenses.
inajeepApr 14, 2011
Do both. Let the tax cuts expire and cut the budget. Sounds like we would get to be in better financial shape better. Doing one and not the other makes little sense to me.
Don't cut the spending for education and renewable energy as it is small but an important for our future.
cajungalApr 14, 2011
We don't have a revenue problem we have a problem with the voracious spending appetite in Washington.
faceofboApr 14, 2011
Nah...The best way to run a business is to give away the product for free to those actually walking in with money while robbing the homeless guy sleeping in the back alley./s
Unregistered_CowardApr 14, 2011
Most low-income earners pay nothing in taxes. How exactly are they being robbed?
Everyone should be afforded the opportunity to better themselves. But that doesn't mean free hand-outs, nor does it give you the right to take my money and give it to someone else in order to level the playing field.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2011
What the f**k are you talking about you loony toon. Why do people like you always try and characterize social programs as "free handouts" and say "level the playing field" as if that isn't a positive thing.
Look, capitalism and the free market, like any system, exists in it's ideal state ONLY in the hypothetical. In reality, there is a tremendous degree of inequality and this inequality hinders a free market because people lost faith in the system. In many ways, success in capitalism as it exists today is a matter of luck when it should ALWAYS be a matter of merit and effort.
Some people have to work for years to earn what others have handed to them. We NEED to have certain measures in place that close the gap on inequality with respect to succeeding.
People like you always characterize these programs as enabling lazy people. That these programs just offer "free handouts". It's completely disingenuous and the kind of black and white simplified explanation that I have come to expect from right wingers.
Most low income earners don't pay taxes because they can hardly eat. People like you always rant and rave about how welfare recipients and low income earners are just lazy, living large off other people's hard work. Again, what a bunch of disingenuous bulls**t. People like you think that if you just cut these people off that they would suddenly become industrious over night and become productive.
Yes, everyone should be afforded the opportunity to better themselves. And that costs money. And if right wingers weren't so f**king focused on making rich people even more rich maybe they would be more open to laying a bit more of the burden on them. Sure, the rich pay the highest percentage of taxes. But they also own 98% of the wealth of the country. And no, it's not always because they were smart or hard working (donald trump? the koch brothers? Forbes?).
So lets just cut the crap.
hobbitloverApr 15, 2011
Whenever somebody starts yelling about handouts and meritocracy, I always ask them how they feel about inheritance taxes. If they truly believe everyone is playing on a level playing field then they should be willing to accept an inheritance tax of 95 per cent. If people insist on keeping more of the money that they earn because, dammit!, they earned it, they shouldn't have a problem giving up money that someone else earned.
kasha34Apr 15, 2011
It's just the reverse. Someone worked hard for that money. If they chose to pass it to their children, or wife, or to a home for wayward cats, IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY.
chadster1000Apr 15, 2011
Kasha you overlooked the fact that most of the wealth in this country is inherited in the first place. Inherited and then used to benefit those who control it. The reason the Bush tax cuts ever passed is because the rich stand to benefit from them, and they control the wealth. America hasn't been a meritocracy in quite some time. There should be limits. Sure people can be rich...but when you have people controlling hundreds of millions or billions of dollars it's just ridiculous.
Even those that did earn the money on their own; you can hardly say they worked for it. Can you honestly say Zuckerburg worked for his billions? No, he was a smart and shrewd guy with a lucky idea at the right time. He didn't work harder than any blue collar worker, he just won a proverbial lottery.
cajungalApr 15, 2011
He may have won the proverbial lottery but it still belongs to him!!!
stewartwflillApr 15, 2011
To those who used "proverbial," stop using that word. People use that word now just because they don't want to be cliche about using cliche sayings. Just say the cliche and move on. Stop tacking on "proverbial." It's a useless word that makes you feel smarter or less cliche but in the end using the word is now cliche. SO if your goal is to not be cliche say, "he won the PROVERBIAL PROVERBIAL lottery" or just don't use it at all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hiropendragonApr 15, 2011
There's an easier rebuttal to our current economic model. The model is based on the assumption that money keeps getting spent in the system. When the richest 1% have 90% of the wealth, and are hoarding it, then basic assumptions of Keynesian economics break down. It simply does not work as stated.
hobbitloverApr 20, 2011
The spice must flow...
sduncan000Apr 20, 2011
How are they hoarding? I see them wearing expensive clothes, driving expensive cars, living in one or more expensive homes, going on expensive vacations, buying their gal-friends expensive jewelry, ...
Unregistered_CowardApr 15, 2011
I see you didn't bother to answer the question. How are they being robbed?
Typical response from someone that can't see the forest for the trees.
chasinvictoriaApr 15, 2011
It's hard to know exactly what you mean, Coward, by "low-income earners." It's true that below a VERY low threshold -- I believe it's $13,000 (feel free to cite the tax code if I'm incorrect, I could be mistaken) -- you don't pay taxes. But have you ever tried to live on $13,000 for even one person?
Plus, you're not counting sales taxes apparently, which even the poorest people pay on almost everything, no exceptions, and they do NOT get that money back no matter how broke they are. Any any WORKING poor people -- millions -- get taxed for SS and medicare (which is a good thing, but it's still a tax deducted from their wages).
Take it from someone who has actually had years when they didn't make very much money -- above that intolerably low poverty line, you DO TOO pay taxes even on laughably small wages.
ajh16Apr 15, 2011
More accurately you don't pay tax on the first certain amount of wages. I don't know if 13,000 is the correct number, but if it is and you made 15,000, you'd only be getting taxed on 2000 and it would be at a pretty minimal tax bracket, but I do think your point still stands.
sduncan000Apr 20, 2011
they "DO TOO pay taxes even on laughably small wages."
And so do the rich. 70% of all income tax is coming from the top 10% of earners.
hiropendragonApr 15, 2011
While that may be true for income taxes, consider:
- Sales tax on almost everything poor people buy
- High property taxes turn into higher rent for tenants for landlords to cover costs
- Inflation + stagnating wages = de facto wealth redistribution upwards (and since it's the bankers who set inflation rates through money supply, it's taking buying power from poor and giving it to rich)
- All the tax money spent to bail out rich bankers. Meanwhile, all of the budgetary "sacrifice" is government programs for poor and working class.
Unregistered_CowardApr 15, 2011
Name a budgetary sacrifice. Show me a program where the poor have been denied basic services because money was funneled to the rich bankers. I'm all for social programs and safety nets, but not as hand-outs and gimmies.
hiropendragonApr 15, 2011
$1 billion from programs that help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Almost $1 billion is cut from a community development fund run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
NOAA's climate service has been cut.
Funding for eGovernment (putting government data online so that everyone can see it and provide transparency of government) was cut 75%.
EPA lost 1.6$bil including toxic waste cleanup.
$390 million from low-income heating subsidies
$578 million from the Army Corps of Engineers (including flood control and inland waterways projects)
WoozyJoeApr 15, 2011
What social program or safety net is not also a hand-out by your definition? Out of curiosity.
ajh16Apr 15, 2011
It's worth noting that inflation has a devastating impact on the rich as their wealth is devalued as well. That said, combined with stagnating wages it does eventually work out to business owners coming out ahead.
cybersaurApr 14, 2011
No, when bush came into office we had budget *surpluses*! When bush left office, his parting gifts to us were $1.5 Trillion dollar deficits and an economy on the brink of a Second Great Depression!
charlesdkraussApr 14, 2011
Thanks Bush! :D
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
A yearly surplus that was projected.
And yet when Obama took over we had deficits of $9 trillion and they have increased to almost $15 trillion.
That Bush arguement is old and played out. The only party to blame for the past 2+ years is the Democrats who controlled the House/Senate, and White House.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Apr 14, 2011
Psst...they lied to us.
Closed AccountApr 14, 2011
Projected = Leave it the f**k alone and pay off the debt.
Besides, the tax cuts were sold on the lie.
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
Perhaps the rest of the world should get your memo, it doesn't work that way.
They use a system of 10 years to forecast budgets.
What lie are you referring to for tax cuts? Didn't Obama have a supermajority in the Senate and huge majorities in the House? Couldn't they get their work done before waiting until the last moment?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicApr 14, 2011
That tax cuts pay for themselves. When they cut taxes they should have cut spending. When they went to ware they should have raised taxes. When they added new entitlements, raise taxes, or cut elsewhere.
Closed AccountApr 14, 2011
What ncmusic said....
The lie that I was referring to was the one about the debt being paid and the government being in the black to justify the tax cuts in the first place.
and I understand the concept of a projection. What you don't seem to is that we'd be in a lot better shape if the projection had been left alone.
ncmusicApr 14, 2011
Cool pro-deficit fans, or people that don't understand the relationship between inlays and outlays.
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
@ncmusic
I agree completely. When you cut taxes you cut spending, and when you go to war you pay for it as you go.
I am not completely partisan in my disproval of congress and the President, Republican or Democrat.
Bush was no fiscal Conservative, and the GOP Congress until 2006 was terrible and were taken out of power. However, since 2006 election Democrats have controlled both branches of Congress, they have plenty of blame for the past 5 years.
sapana543Apr 14, 2011
True, but Bush was handed an overheated economy in a bubble (remember the tech bubble), a gutted US military and intelligence community that led to the 9/11 attacks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drunkclamApr 14, 2011
God you are a f**king idiot.
sapana543Apr 15, 2011
thanks for the enlightening comment.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2011
LOL, yeah a gutted military that still rivals the next 10 largest military powers put together. That's a new one though, I haven't heard that explanation yet. What kind of glue do you huff I want some.
sapana543Apr 15, 2011
We may have had the biggest, but that is not the point. The point is that it was gutted, so Bush had to spend more rebuilding it. Clinton got the benefit of not having spent as much as was needed, but not the cost of having an unprepared military. Those problems were kicked down the road to Bush who picked them and fixed the (without complaint I should point out).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
clanksterApr 15, 2011
If you actually believe that a major problem facing the bush administration was a military that was too small and unprepared, then you are impressively impervious to facts. But if you further believe, as you state above, that Rumsfeld's reorganization of the military "fixed" the problem, then you are categorically insane.
You've heard of the "Generals' Revolt?" In which, for the first time in history, eight retired generals publicly called for the resignation Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary? The specific language used by these generals to describe his performance was "abysmal."
No wonder the Bush administration didn't complain for having to "fix" it.
chadster1000Apr 15, 2011
The terrorist attacks were a result of a flawed foreign policy and the U.S.'s love of meddling in the affairs of others, especially Bush Sr.
superkendallApr 15, 2011
Which is so unlike today *cough* Libya *cough*
Darkeforce1Apr 15, 2011
Welcome to Rightwing Nutbar Talking Point #6487: "Tech Bubble"
def: Something which does not, and did not ever exist; presented as a lame excuse for Bush blowing (and even losing) more government money than any other president in US History (when you factor in the huge surplus that he gobbled through)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nickymouseApr 14, 2011
Much of that surplus came from raiding the social security coffers.
blackjackjesterApr 14, 2011
The entire surplus came from that. If you take out social security income from that fiscal year, the US was still in the red. Not nearly as much as we are now, but there wasn't really ever a surplus.
norman619Apr 14, 2011
No there was still a tiny surplus when you take away the raiding of Social Security. What I find funny is that the government prosecuted Enron for dong the same thing.
Closed AccountApr 14, 2011
there was a surplus under clinton, the problem is that legislation which promised future benefits over time is wrongfully deducted by the whole amount all at once.
so if you say, devoted 100 billion a year for 10 future years to a program, they'll say it cost us a trillion dollars the first year it started when that is not true. yes, it WILL cost a trillion in total, but it will only cost soo much a year, hence the surplus at the time.
norman619Apr 14, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGgjU-h_xQw
This will explain to you the reality of that "surplus" you are talking about.
Closed AccountApr 14, 2011
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
norman619Apr 14, 2011
Actually no we didn't. The raiding of the Social Security surpluses made it appear as though we had a huge surplus. we did not.
Have a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGgjU-h_xQw
Keep in mind this is coming from the former head of the GAO who kept track of all of our government's ACTUAL spending. If anyone knows the truth it's this guy.
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
I'll Digg it, but just so you know, you aren't allowed to make sense around here, the libs get offended and will bury you.
Darkeforce1Apr 15, 2011
Liberals only get offended when you deliberately lie, or mindlessly repeat right-wing propaganda, such as you just did.
Closed AccountApr 14, 2011
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
norman619Apr 14, 2011
Watch the video. It's covered.
superkendallApr 15, 2011
And then Obama with with 4x THAT spending rate.
The problem with your argument is, you assume people were happy with Bush for spending that much at the time. Nope, plenty of conservatives complaining about spending then that are complaining now about the 4x increased rate of spending.
charlesdkraussApr 14, 2011
Bush cut taxes AND increased spending. We have a revenue and spending problem. We need to let the tax cuts expire back to the pre-bush era and cut some spending.
ridgerunner5Apr 14, 2011
How about we cut spending back to pre-Bush era as well?
charlesdkraussApr 14, 2011
Yeah... that's basically what I just said...
ridgerunner5Apr 14, 2011
Sorry, misread it.
cajungalApr 14, 2011
If you raise taxes you are discouraging the very thing we need--job growth. We must make the tax cuts permanent to give confidence to job creators and we must set a permanent course for lowering our nation's debt by living within our means. No more spending more than we take in. Lower spending to twenty percent less than we receive in taxes and put that twenty percent toward paying off the national debt. It is the only moral thing to do. It is simply wrong to run up an astronomical bill and hand it to our children and grandchildren to pay. That is taxation without representation--isn't that what all the fuss was about that led to our Revolutionary War? Why is it okay then to burden our children in such a way that we ourselves refuse to be burdened?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyApr 14, 2011
Still not buying 'trickle down'. Lowering taxes is not a good way to create jobs. You want more jobs? Create programs to develop those jobs. End the unfair advantage of large corps compared to small business when it comes to jobs.
ncmusicApr 14, 2011
If you take away all the social programs that let poor people afford goods in this down economy you also take away a much needed thing - demand. Is there any real evidence anywhere that a 3% tax increase or decrease to those making 250k a year (that's take home pay for business owners) as any major affect on job growth? I mean you hirer someone to make you money right? What does your income tax rate have to do with the ability of a new hirer to make your business money? You don't pay taxes on their salary? Only what the business takes in and you take home over and above their salary.
topperpopperApr 15, 2011
I'm not sure why this isn't mentioned more often. There is a difference between a business tax and personal income tax, but the right constantly conflates the two.
juice15Apr 15, 2011
The difference is in how you file. Most small business owners file as individuals and not a business.
I believe that taxes will need to be raised and spending will need to be cut. The difference is where we raise the taxes - I think $250k is too low a number. $250k sounds like a lot but, in NYC $250k is the equivalent of $125k in Roanoke, VA. I think cost of living makes a big difference. Raise it 5% on everything over $1M and ~2% on everything over $500k. And these numbers need to increase with inflation every year so we don't get in the AMT mess.
superkendallApr 15, 2011
@juice You can't just "stick it to the rich" because as you yourself note, the definition of Rich invariably hits on some people who really are just living in an expensive area. The "rich" cannot buy our way out of a fiscal mess, make whatever taxes or cuts you have in mind fair across the earning spectrum - it's the only way.
rotundoApr 15, 2011
Ya, the fact that we had higher taxes in the 90's and higher job growth should have already settled this. It's true that very high taxes can stifle growth, but we're nowhere near that level: obviously, demonstrably, economic growth was great under the Clinton era tax structure. Anyone claiming we can't handle such a tax burden is either lying or willfully ignorant: we've already had it and it worked great.
If a person wants to reduce our debt, they should be in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
charlesdkraussApr 14, 2011
Leaving the tax cuts in place means you WILL put the burden on our children to pay off. Increase taxes now to pay for the f**king s**t we've borrowed.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2011
And increase on the rich, why is this so hard? So the rich feel a pinch, they aren't going to lose their f**king shirts. Yeah the rich pay most of the taxes, maybe because they collectively own 98% of the wealth of the country, off the sweat of those who work for them.
sduncan000Apr 20, 2011
Even if you were to steal 100% of the "rich"'s money, it would provide about 10 days worth of gov't function. Then that money is gone and you are back to square 1. Selectively taxing the 'rich' does not solve this problem.
superkendallApr 15, 2011
And then the government will just spend more anyway. So why should I pay higher taxes to support spending that has gone wacky?
casualreaderApr 14, 2011
Talk to any small businessman or startup (where most job growth comes from). They are not waiting for taxes to drop, they are waiting for DEMAND to pick up. When that happens, come high taxes or low, they will expand, or lose out to a competitor who expands. Sure we all like low taxes, but they don't drive job growth. We should encourage startups by making loan money available and by reducing the burden of startup paperwork.
I agree with the article. Repeal the Bush tax cuts and make some MAJOR spending cuts. And, the next time we go to war, let's have a WAR tax, paid by everyone but combat service personell and their families (their parents and/or children). No more wandering into conflicts unless everyone makes sacrifices.
ncmusicApr 14, 2011
I'm a HUGE fan of war taxes. It really helps frame the debate about how much we want to go blow stuff up and invade other nations.
topperpopperApr 15, 2011
Franken introduced legislation covering exactly that, but it hasn't had much traction.
http://digg.com/story/r/franken_wants_wars_to_be_paid_for_minnesota_independent_news_politics_media
shark72Apr 15, 2011
Your theory works -- in theory. You're in good company; this was exactly the rationale behind the Bush tax cuts. A sputtering economy would be helped by allowing the rich to have more capital to invest in productivity.
It was a great theory. But it didn't work. And we're living with the consequences today.
We're enjoying some of the lowest top marginal tax rates in US history, and yet our economy is in trouble. This isn't surprising; look at the top marginal rates over time and you'll see that they tend to go hand in hand with periods of prosperity. For instance, during the post-war boom, the top marginal rate was 91%!
Nobody's advocating that they return to those levels again, but it's clear that we're nowhere near the apex of the Laffer curve.
cajungalApr 15, 2011
The problem is that the second half wasn't followed through with. Spending has to be cut simultaneously.
Let history be your guide. When Calvin Coolidge faced dire financial conditions he fixed the problem with drastically cutting taxes AND spending. This resulted in a 3.3 percent unemployment rate, the gross national product increased by 7 percent, and per capita income grew by 30 percent so real earnings were up 22 percent.
It really is just that simple. This isn’t rocket science.
shark72Apr 15, 2011
You're correct that Coolidge's cutting the top marginal rate created several years of wealth and excess. It was his actions that were fundamentally responsible for what we know as the Roaring 20s. When the last of his tax cuts were enacted, only the richest 2% of the population paid *any* tax.
We all know the results, of course. The stock market crashed six months after he left office. The time period between the Coolidge tax cuts and the crash of '29 and the Bush tax cuts and the crash of '07 are scarily similar.
History has not been particularly kind to Coolidge as an effective president, and this is one major reason why. We can downplay the damage he helped set in motion now, but the folks who had to live through the ensuing depression have another view of things. To Coolidge's credit, he certainly meant well, just as Bush did.
I think an example that's much more relevant to today's economy is Reagan. He was the one of the biggest small government / low tax proponents we've ever had, but he also knew when to raise taxes. He did so not by raising the tax rate (in fact, the top marginal rate dropped from 70% to 38.5% during his terms), but by eliminating lots of loopholes and tax breaks.
I know that with the advent of the Tea Party, Reagan's standing has dropped considerably; many tea partiers deride him for a tax policy that they see as anti-business. That's too bad, in a lot of ways. While the economy took a hit in the late 90s, and while I have plenty so say about Reagan's social and state policies, the plain fact is that the economy did pretty well for more than a decade after he left office. Coolidge can claim no such legacy.
cajungalApr 15, 2011
There was a correction about that time which is a normal part of the business cycle. What made the Great Depression was what happened after Progressive policies were put back into play. They made what would have been just a recession into a great depression. FDR made things expotentially worse with every move he made.
ryanjmsApr 15, 2011
Best argument I ever heard against the trickle down theory is this: I've never heard of a business that was doing well and couldn't keep up with demand say, "I can't afford to hire someone to help." Every business hires based on demand for their goods and services, not a 3% increase on their marginal tax rate of over $250,000.
cajungalApr 15, 2011
Every penny you take from a business is one less that they can use to invest and expand their business and it is one less that they can use to hire another employee. Businesses create jobs, not the government. With more business expansion, you will have an increase in tax receipts; the inverse is also true.
boo1Apr 15, 2011
You can flog that horse all you want, it still ain't gonna run. If this were true, we should have seen the largest expansion of jobs over the last 35 years. How has it gone?
Look, as an employer, I hire based on need. When someone "demands" more of my product, I don't worry if my taxes have gone up or not. I worry whether I have enough manpower to produce the product.
superkendallApr 15, 2011
That is the best argument I've ever heard. I can tell because it doesn't make any sense, just like the others. Businesses hire based on demand AND how much money they have left after expenses. Raising taxes raises expenses, meaning even if demand is increasing you can hire fewer workers to meet it.
casualreaderApr 15, 2011
Demand is the key. If demand comes along and a business doesn't have enough cash to expand (due to tax issues or something else) then they borrow the necessary money, that's what business loans are all about.
You will note how well the economy did during the 90s when, according to Bush, taxes were too high. Obviously other issues were far more important. And did the economy take a huge jump forward after the Bush tax cuts? ha!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cajungalApr 15, 2011
When the customer refuses to spend money in a business because the prices are too steep then the business won't last very long even if they get those loans you are referring to. When taxes and energy prices go up the businesses necessarily have to raise prices to keep the doors open which in turn lowers the number of customers who can afford to patronize the business. The income of most people these days is stagnant at best. They just cannot afford to pay more and neither can the businesses.
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
Eliminating liberals from Congress and the Presidency would cut the deficit by 100% over the next 20 years. Why go for 75% of a faulty argument when you can have 100%?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
korvarApr 14, 2011
Because when conservatives had control of the House, Senate, and White House the Bush Administration was a model of fiscal restraint?
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
No...they failed terribly at it, and were removed from office accordingly.
peenkillerApr 14, 2011
Are we talking about the current administration here phydeaux? Because they're doing a stellar job right now.
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
The election of 2010 is evidence of the current administration.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2011
The election of 2010 is evidence of corporate interests guiding the masses of tea party idiots into voting against their better interests. It's evidence that those who played the tea party like the fiddle they are is genius in that they basically re-branded republicans as tea partiers.
It's evidence that many Americans are short sighted and impatient and as a result ripe for mind f**king by corporate propaganda and fox news manipulation.
Look at some of the loony tune candidates that became popular! The tea partiers were in such a fervor they almost voted in christine odonnell, they almost voted in sharron second amendment solutions angle. I meant holy f**k, these people were NOT at the controls, they were following order. Government bad, corporations/big business good. USA! USA! USA!
superkendallApr 15, 2011
@dub To the contrary the Tea Party is voting in people who are truly fiscal conservatives and for small government, not large corporations as the Republicans and Democrats alike have traditionally been for. It's only the Tea Party that has had some luck in cleaning house on the Republican side, while the Democratic side of the equation is still full of people supporting large corporations over small business (like Obamacare forcing people into large insurance plans, or bailing out every single company with a bad idea and years of mismanagement as long as they were large enough).
casualreaderApr 15, 2011
A"true fiscal conservative" would be willing to pay for what he gets (unless he is also a thief). So far as I can tell, the Tea Party will cut programs they don't like, but keep the ones they do, and refuse to raise taxes to pay for them. Anyone honestly looking at the deficit knows that both spending cuts and more tax money are necessary to balance the budget. And don't talk about SS, it already supports itself.
JustSayNoPartyApr 14, 2011
You missed the point. Your just removing the Liberals. You gotta remove the republicans as well if you want to cut the deficit.
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
No exactly. I will be on whatever side decides it is important to reduce the size of the Federal government.
The only exception to that is the military, which is a vital function of the government. Social programs, while nice, are not a requirement of the Constitution, and neither are huge government agencies.
In my pipe dream we would have term limits for Congress members. People in office would have to return all money left in their campaign 'warchest', and the benefit packages for Congressional members would be exempt once they are no longer in office.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyApr 14, 2011
I like many of your points. But, I still prefer having Medicare and Social Security there when I retire. A Social Compact (as Obama stated) is important for a first-world country in my opinion.
Closed AccountApr 14, 2011
The military is bloated, wasteful, and an invading army the size of which could invade the United States would have to hide on the dark side of the moon. They can take a pay cut.
elhafApr 14, 2011
Not only prefer, I pay 12k per year to have social security there when I retire. About the same as I pay in regular taxes, so it being about half the budget seems about right. It's the unfunded wars that are the problem.
superkendallApr 15, 2011
That is what the Tea Party has been doing from the inside, replacing Republicans with Conservatives.
ncmusicApr 14, 2011
Are you saying every republican in congress has less than 3 years of experience?
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
No sir. But I would vote for anybody that was against the policies of the current administration.
JustSayNoPartyApr 14, 2011
@phydeaux, I hear Ghadaffi is against the policies of the Current Administration.
publiclurkerApr 14, 2011
Well, Ghadaffi's skin is lighter, so maybe he would agree.
sduncan000Apr 20, 2011
@public - there we go folks!
The left running up the racism flag again!
And foster, usually you have much more thoughtful responses - I am disappointed :)
mantiskungfuApr 15, 2011
Bush was a failure; a pseudo republican. Wait until the Tea Party rolls in, you'll see what real fiscal republicans are for.
publiclurkerApr 16, 2011
Lynching and cross burning if a teabagging bigot like you is any example.
mantiskungfuApr 16, 2011
The hypocrisy spewing out of you is mind blowing. Do you even know what a bigot is?
sduncan000Apr 20, 2011
What fiscal 'conservative' was in the white house in the past 18 years?
mbst2000Apr 14, 2011
@phydeaux70,
congratulations for sounding like a 3 year old
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
You may not like it but it's true. As far as the eye can see, the Democrats in Congress and the White House have budgets over $1 trillion in debt per year.
Prove me wrong if you feel like it.
All of Obama's proposals use figures that aren't attainable, such as annual growth rates of 6%.
I may sound like a 3 year old to you, but what does that say about you since I understand the problem better than you do.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepApr 14, 2011
That was a better response than your original one.
ncmusicApr 14, 2011
As opposed to Ryan's 2.8% unemployment numbers?
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
Ryan budget predicts that in the year 2021.
It sounds out of line and is lower than historical averages for sure. But all leading economic indicators suggest that we should have a job shortage after boomers are all retired, which might lend some credibility to it.
At any rate, his estimate is at the end of the program, thus showing a benefit. Obama gives his estimates in order to make his numbers look good along the way. Totally different angle there.
Had Obama said at the conclusion of my deficit reduction, GDP will be growing at 6.0%, it would be apples to apples. But that is not what he is saying.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicApr 14, 2011
Except that the heritage foundation went back and changed the model so they didn't believe or could defend the number either. But apparently employment rate has no baring on the model if almost doubling the rate doesn't do much to the model.
doskrautApr 14, 2011
washington is a state in the north west,Washington DC is where the capital and problems are.
cajungalApr 15, 2011
I am sorry, I should have been more specific, I guess I was wrong in assuming everyone would know which Washinton I was referring to. So I stand corrected, Washington D. C. is what I meant.
darthmeatloafApr 14, 2011
We have both. We cannot fix the budget without fixing both.
drunkclamApr 14, 2011
ehh, wrong again.
bcarl314Apr 14, 2011
Ohh, ohh, let me guess, that "voracious spending appetite" you're referring to is only social programs like Medicare and Social Security, right? Never mind the fact that THOSE ARE RUNNING SURPLUSES AND HAVE FOR DECADES!
Look, I don't mind cutting the budget - and hard - but cut it where it needs to be cut including the military (primarily the military). Don't cut SS / Medicare because those already have dedicated payroll taxes that have run HUGE surpluses for decades and greatly benefit society as a whole.
Second, don't think cutting taxes on the wealthy helps the US at all. IF, BIG f**kING IF, that were the case, the last 10 years of Bush Era tax cuts should be fully kicking in now, why aren't they? Since they haven't, its obvious the effects of tax cuts are overstated. In fact, I believe the CBO says the ROI on tax cuts is about 70 cents on the dollar, where as the ROI on direct spending (public works, welfare / unemployment, etc) is over $1.25 for every dollar. If we want to run this as a business, let's do what makes sense, raise taxes (we only loose 70 cents for every dollar raised) and use that 30 cents to invest in programs that work (thus multiplying the effect to 38 cents).
ncmusicApr 14, 2011
I don't think that Medicare runs a surplus or has for a while, but SS does.
evervisionApr 14, 2011
No one is quoting facts or sources. Does this "surplus" include all future liabilities? (i.e. how long will people live on social security? does that person put in enough money to compenstate?) Otherwise you have a surplus while they aren't on Social Security and while they are on it, until they live to long.
ncmusicApr 14, 2011
SS income is relative to what you put into it. There are graphs that show average relative cost of contribution vs benefit, it's really close for both poor and rich people. It wasn't likely to be sustainable indefinitely but things like means testing or even increasing the retirement age relative to life expectancy could go a long way toward tackling that problem. Or increase the income cap for SS contributions.
bcarl314Apr 15, 2011
I agree, because the problems with SS are primarily demographics, revising the terms to fit modern demographics is, in my mind, a reasonable approach. I DO support raising the retirement age and raising the income limit (I'll bet most people don't know that you don't pay SS on amounts over about $105k).
ShovelbabyApr 14, 2011
SS doesn't have a surplus either. http://www.debtism.com/social-security/social-security-surplus-myth-art14.htm and is now paying out more than it takes in http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?_r=1
novenatorApr 14, 2011Submitter
SS had a $2.7 TRILLION surplus from 2000-2010. That money was stolen by the Republicans (mostly), and has to be paid back. SS can run a deficit for many years based on that money being paid back alone.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elhafApr 14, 2011
It wasn't stolen, it was "invested" in wars. What is the roi on a war, again?
bcarl314Apr 14, 2011
$2.7T in the 2000-2010, that doesn't even begin to touch the surplus from 1950 - 2000.
@elhaf - considering the "ROI" argument at the time for the wars was "we'll make it back in oil revenue", only to see $0 come from that, I'd say the ROI is negative ;)
novenatorApr 15, 2011Submitter
bcarl, I hadn't even considered that. Do you have any citations that have the surplus figures listed?
elhafApr 14, 2011
No, the spending is going to two things: war, and social security/medicare, about half and half. Everything else is in the noise. The income comes from two sources: personal income taxes, and social security, about half and half. The corporate income tax is in the noise. So if we cut out social security/medicare altogether, (paying and getting) we'd still be in a huge hole because of unfunded wars. It is the revenue, and the wars.
elhafApr 14, 2011
Maybe the corporate income taxes should be raised to pay for their wars. I don't know anyone else who wants them.
bcarl314Apr 14, 2011
Or anyone else who benefits from them! :)
superkendallApr 15, 2011
Because the people of Iraq (like the hundreds of thousands of kurds being gassed under Saddam) gained no benefit whatsoever from a dictator being removed.
Oh wait.
casualreaderApr 15, 2011
And what do you thing will happen to the Kurds when the current Iraq government finally takes over? I'm willing to bet things won't get better.
hiropendragonApr 15, 2011
Like 2 wars that cost multiple trillions of dollars?
douglas5937Apr 15, 2011
OK
drmangrumApr 14, 2011
You know what would solve the deficit by 100% tomorrow?
Not spending money you don't have.
FenderStratocasterApr 14, 2011
Shifting shiftless leaches to the curb and demanding those who are able bodied to support themselves would be good. As would taxing all Americans with a flat tax, as opposed to singling out one group over another, to pay the way of professional students, like the Novenblather, through personal subsidies and welfare.
aadainApr 14, 2011
A flat tax favors the wealthy because it would be just another tax cut for them.
We don't need less revenue, we need to find a way to increase it and decrease our spending at the same time. Pushing a little bit from both ends will do substantially more good than relying on only other solution.
theunlearnApr 14, 2011
A flat tax favors no one. It would be an equal percentage of income for everyone paying taxes. Unless you think that the government owns all wealth in the country and simply allows people to keep a portion of it for themselves. In that case the government would always be favoring the rich by giving them the most money.
aadainApr 14, 2011
It favors the rich because we would have to settle on a tax rate that would allow the lower income group, the bottom 50%, to pay taxes and still be able to provide a roof over their head and food in their stomaches. That means the universal tax rate would have to be pretty low, hence a big fat tax cut for the rich compared to what they are paying now.
Or we could tax everyone at the middle-class tax rate, putting millions of people below the poverty line, and again, giving a nice fat tax cut to the rich compared to their current rate.
A flat tax only works if the spread between the top and bottom earning groups is not very large, which is not the case in the US.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2011
Thank the f**king lord someone put this flat tax nonsense into perspective. Jezuz tap dancing christ why are people always advocating a flat tax? "Derrr it would be simpler" Yeah it would be simpler but it doesn't make any f**king sense.
shark72Apr 15, 2011
Moving from a progressive to a flat income tax system also means a regressive total tax burden, as use and excise taxes tend to be regressive. The net tax burden then becomes regressive.
atomheartmotherApr 14, 2011
Historically both Democrats and Republicans have agreed that raising taxes in an economy that is struggling like the one we are in is not economically sound. In addition, why would we in any way assume that president Obama and congress will use the new dollars towards deficit reduction? The track record indicates that won't be the case.
We need a balanced budget amendment, just like most states currently operate under. I'm convinced that the ONLY way politicians are ever going to act responsibly is if they're forced to.
norman619Apr 14, 2011
Hell look at they did with the small surplus we had? They used it to grow government. I don't know what we are going to do. these people have shown they can't be trusted with our money. Both sides are spend-drunk. they are only now talking "cut backs" only because the people are scared and threatening to fire them.
silenttwitchApr 14, 2011
Republicans and Democrats do work together....................to screw over the american people for their own benefits.
norman619Apr 14, 2011
Bipartisanship FTW!
silenttwitchApr 15, 2011
We really need Tripartisanship. Democrats and Republicans working together with the American people.
JustSayNoPartyApr 14, 2011
Exactly right. During the so called good times, did the politicians keep a 'rainy day' fund? I too like the idea of a Federal Balanced Budget.
atomheartmotherApr 14, 2011
Yep...and God forbid they'd actually set aside some money in case of some unforeseen event. You know, like most of the rest of us do.
norman619Apr 14, 2011
How could and sane person not like that?
JustSayNoPartyApr 14, 2011
You would think so. Where are the politicians pushing hard for a Federal Balanced Budget then?
norman619Apr 14, 2011
Well the politicians have a vested interest in not having one. If they did have one then they'd be unable to use our money to buy as many favors and bribe certain parts of the population for their votes.
theswashbucklerApr 14, 2011
"We need a balanced budget amendment"
No, we don't. It would be asinine.
atomheartmotherApr 14, 2011
Do you want to expand on that and explain why? It seems asinine to me that our government continues to incur massive debt without any realistic way we can repay it.
theswashbucklerApr 14, 2011
Sure. Sometimes a government needs to borrow money just like people need to borrow money. Most people borrow money to purchase something expensive such as a car or home. If people couldn't borrow money to buy a home most people that live in homes now would not live in homes.
Similarly, there are times when governments need to do something expensive, like fight wars. Wars can be very expensive. Requiring a balanced budget in such times is RIDICULOUS. Though I imagine it would cut down on the number of wars we'd involve ourselves in.
Try to comprehend that there's a huge chasm between what we've been doing over the last ten years and requiring a balanced budget. Always requiring a balanced budget is just as extreme, and just as wrong, as what's been going on over the last decade.
superkendallApr 15, 2011
Fine then make borrowing for emergencies an exception that everyone can agree too. But day to day do not let the government spend like drunken sailors.
novenatorApr 15, 2011Submitter
The main problem with that is that they would always find a new "emergency". Remember the "special appropriations" bills to pay for the overseas wars rammed through by the conservatives under the guise of it being an "emergency"? The most vial part about that was trying to paint anyone who voted against it and for fiscal responsibility as a "traitor" who "hates the troops".
atomheartmotherApr 15, 2011
"Try to comprehend that there's a huge chasm between what we've been doing over the last ten years and requiring a balanced budget."
Try to comprehend that without one, our leaders are going to bankrupt the nation.
topperpopperApr 15, 2011
Borrowing is necessary. It allows different parts of the world's economy to buoy one another if one begins to fail. The government's/FED's financial flexibility SHOULD help blunt the peaks and valleys in a capitalist boom/bust cycle by spending during recessions and cutting back/saving during bubbles. This seems to only come into practice during recessions, while spending rises to match the income during booms and any thoughts of a future bust are hushed and forgotten.
neil31Apr 14, 2011
Basically, Washington does not have a spending problem. Ithas a revenue problem. Obama's plan will fix that.
4Herp2Derp0Apr 14, 2011
Well they have both. However, Republicans are going after the wrong things. They should be going after the military spending right off the bat. We simply do not need to continue these BS skirmishes any longer. Our objectives in Afghanistan now are much different than the reason we went there. We didn't even accomplish what we wanted to, or at least what we were told was the reason for invading. Instead, we killed many innocent civilians which created even more people that loathe America.
The Afghanistan and Iraq wars made us less safe, not more.
Also, legalize marijuana and the cultivation of hemp. This would not only save money spent on law enforcement, the judicial system, and reduce crime but it would also create tons of jobs and instead of being the worlds biggest importer of hemp, we would be the worlds biggest exporter. There are many manufacturing jobs that would be created right here in America. Not to mention, you would have a huge competitor for lumber, oil, cotton, and big pharma(this would bring health care costs down). Competition will bring prices down.
Couple those two things with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and you all of a sudden don't have a spending OR revenue problem anymore.
theunlearnApr 14, 2011
Hell, if we repealed all legislation pertaining to illicit drugs we could completely shut down the DEA and not have to spend $3 billion dollars on them plus the money saved from not having to imprison these "offenders." Or we could just shut the DEA down regardless since their function could just as easily be performed by the FBI and ICE.
superkendallApr 15, 2011
Military spending is around 10% of spending. It doesn't make sense to address that first.
kingbubbakushApr 14, 2011
TAX THE RICH!!!!!!!
norman619Apr 14, 2011
What do we do when we run out of rich people?
enantiodromiaApr 14, 2011
Not that you will ever know what its like, but plenty of other people are actually making quite a lot of money these days.
Don't worry your pretty little head about it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Apr 14, 2011
Yay!!!! We're safe!
2serveApr 14, 2011
Haha... I know what else could help... Ending nation building in other countries, resource plundering abroad, fix the disproportionate ways people are taxed, ie: raise the percentage on the wealthy; and even better, fire all of congress with the exception of Ron Paul. bleh.. lets just start a new country. choose a state then declare a new country within it. lol..
skywiseApr 14, 2011
BS. The numbers assume the federal budget won't grow (and it will) and that the debt interest rates won't grow (and they will) and tax income will remain steady (and it won't because the economy is not turning around at all) and doesn't include rising medicare and social security and now obamacare costs (to which the FA tosses away as: "Much of it will have to come from slowing the growth rate of medical spending, which is the main cause of the long-term deficit. ")
Propaganda. Goebbels would be proud.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tao52nycApr 14, 2011
That's the liberals biggest mistake in thinking. They think that if they institute a new tax, additional revenue will in fact rise, and human behavior won't change to counteract it. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences, and both liberals and neocons are blissfully in denial of it.
4bitApr 14, 2011
It's called break even point.
If I can sell 10 widgets at 8 dollars, 9 widgits at 9 dollars, and 8 widgets at 10 dollars then I need to charge 9 dollars. Increasing cost would loose me money AND CUTTING COST would loose me money.
We fell bellow that point and need to push it back.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
quisquisApr 15, 2011
What evidence do you have that we're below that point? And on what income segment are we below that point?
4bitApr 15, 2011
Mostly due to figures showing how much we'd gain if we just let the Bush Tax Cuts expire.
But mostly this is a generic counter argument to the right that we can cut our way to growth. At some point cutting is just that... cutting.
And sometimes spending... is saving. For example, Ink Jet printers are less expensive than laser, but laser costs less to run, and quickly ends up being cheaper.
Similarly, in some cases government programs cost money to run, but they save us more money in the long run.
topperpopperApr 15, 2011
Loose like the polar bears on Loost?
4bitApr 15, 2011
Well I could have spelled it lose, but I thought that it needed extra emphasis...
Buying that...? No?
Oh shut up.
enantiodromiaApr 14, 2011
You don't start two wars and an occupation on the other side of the planet without raising taxes.
If you don't see the problem with this, you are an idiot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
markglApr 14, 2011
So? That doesn't fix the stupid spending.
methdwman3Apr 14, 2011
Gotta love the caption on this one regarding Repubs starting new wars LOL
Closed AccountApr 14, 2011
Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html
enantiodromiaApr 14, 2011
the tax burden of just me all by myself exceeds that of the bottom 47%, because they don't pay any federal income tax.
novenatorApr 15, 2011Submitter
The only thing that demonstrates is just how far this pattern of wealth concentration has become. The rich have been getting richer since fiscal conservatism took over under Reagan, and they just now have almost all the money. The richest 400 have more money than HALF the nation remember.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jcnesApr 15, 2011
novenator, that's quite a statisitic. Is there a source where I can read up more about that?
phydeaux70Apr 14, 2011
So Obama doesn't like the taxes on business owners.
Given the opportunity to raise the tax threshold to those who make $1 million he passed. Want to know why? Because the money to be made by the tax increases is from those who make between $250,000 and $500,000. Those same people constitute 80% of small business in the United States.
Spin it any way you like you can't dispute the facts. Had he wanted to increase taxes on millionaire and billionaires, he could. But that's not really what he wants to do, it's just a talking point for Democrats who believe his bulls**t.
In addition, the job growth during the Clinton years was due to the dot com bubble, that burst as he was leaving office. Clinton's spending was in line, as was his budget, but those were submitted by a GOP controlled Congress. More facts to get in the way of dishonest liberal talking points.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
itsjustjenApr 14, 2011
Cite your source.
davidnivenApr 14, 2011
And this would solve nothing unless the morons in Washington...
STOP SPENDING MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN!!!
Balance the friggin' checkbook, idiots! If you don't have it in your checking accounting, then stop writing checks!!!
It's NOT your money, idiots!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
faceofboApr 14, 2011
Do you live in the US? Do you drink water? Do you drive or ride a bike? Do you call the police when you get robbed? Would you depend on a fire department if your house caught on fire or if you went to work and your office caught on fire?
How about if you got stuck in an elevator?
So all the wealthy guys and their corporations that use the airports and roads and demand more security than anyone else in the nation should get it all for free?
Tell ya what. You want the guys making over $1,000,000 annually to be given everything on a silver platter, you pay for it.
Go ahead. You want to keep them spoiled and fat then you pay for it. You seem to have no problem prostituting yourself for them so why not go all the way and let them bleed you dry?
methdwman3Apr 14, 2011
Many of the things you mentioned are outside the realm of the federal government.
scamper22Apr 14, 2011
exactly... i always find responses like faceofbo kinda odd.
When they list things the you should *miss* from government, it's typically the thing small government folks want to keep and tend to be provided locally.
Police, fire, basic infrastructure like roads, water...
How much of the budget to those take up? Not much. We could afford those services with very low tax rates.
It's all the medicare, military, pensions, bureaucracies... that many don't want the federal government doing that take up the most money.
methdwman3Apr 14, 2011
Agreed. I'm all for strong local and state governments - it is much easier to have an impact on what is going on there, as opposed to Washington, where anything can be buried in trillions of dollars worth of a budget.
elhafApr 14, 2011
But cutting out social security would do almost nothing for the deficit. Take away half the spending and half the income (14% ss rate is about half the federal income). Now you're back where you started but with lots of pissed off people who paid into a now defunct system, who have no savings for retirement.
ridgerunner5Apr 14, 2011
faceofbo, do you work for a private company or corporation? If so, then one of those wealthy guys is your boss and signs off on your paycheck.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2011
Yeah and faceofbo earns that paycheck by doing his job well and working hard, which benefits his boss more than it does him. So what is your point? That rich people are somehow these benevolent angels who take pity on us lowly workers and pay us...to....contribute to earning them money.....???
Again, what in the f**k is your point you stupid bastard? It's a mutual arrangement, one that favours the "wealthy guys" FAR more than it does the worker.
Why do right wingers make these comments? "Derrr rich people create jobs" Yeah, so what? Workers have to get an education, which takes a lot of hard work, to become qualified to work those jobs. Rich people don't "give" jobs to people. People apply for jobs based on their credentials and skills. The "rich" hire those people because they NEED them. It isn't some kind of charity. Should I go kiss my boss' ass for paying me to do my job? "Oh thank you, thank you kind rich man for compensating me for working for you and ultimately helping you make exorbitant profits while you pay me as little as you possibly can!"
Look at the difference between CEO and worker wages. It's obscene. CEOs these days often earn up to 1000% more than their workers on average.
So honestly, don't peddle that garbage anymore and tell your inbred friends. Stop misrepresenting the issue.
ridgerunner5Apr 15, 2011
Maybe you should just settle for not kicking your boss in the dick when he hands you your paycheck. CEOs earn more money because they do more work. They may not be the one personally pushing the product, but they are managing thousands, sometimes millions of people and trying to keep the business running and profitable.
faceofboApr 14, 2011
1. I work independently assisting people who have been f**ked by banks and paid by the people I assist and only what they can afford. Not everyone works for corporations and many of us practice right livelihood, a concept, it appears, many on this thread haven't a clue
2. All of the items I discussed are in part, if not all, paid through "taxes". I never stated federal. state or local. BUT all are paid through taxes.
3. Many of the utilities, roads, bridges, police, fire....in fact, I would venture to guess ALL have received federal funding of some sort over the past few years, whether it is to purchase a fleet of patrol cars, new fire truck, build a bridge, upgrade highways, pay for staff, build a plant; attach to the grid; support a project, build or upgrade and airport, build a school, supply books, pay for programs and education - through grants and subsidies; leases of land to land purchase; easements, equipment........something was assisted through the Federal government and in turn the taxpayer.
Looks like the guys with their head in the sand are fighting hard to pack it in as hard as they can
davidnivenApr 14, 2011
1. Helping others is a good thing as exemplified by your job. Now, what does THAT have to do with balancing a budget?
2. Taxes themselves are not the issue. Spending more than tax receipts is the issue.
3. No, little of what you mentioned involve any Federal taxes. Most of what you mentioned are not even regulated by the Federal government (thank God!).
I am not advocating a purely libertarian or minimalist form of government where there are practically no services or functions.
I just want government at ALL levels to not spend more than it takes in. Period.
JustSayNoPartyApr 14, 2011
2, Taxes themselves are not the issue. Spending more than tax receipts is the issue.
I can't disagree with the tenor of your points. But, you can't keep reducing taxes and at the same time act like Spending is the issue.
If taxes are reduced to 5% across the board, will you still say 'Spending' is the problem?
davidnivenApr 14, 2011
Right. But, let's be careful increasing taxes. Increase them too much and the economy will shrink.
What happened in the 80s is that most taxes were lowered. Now, one would immediately think that tax receipts would go down too. Actually, tax receipts increased because the lower taxes allowed the economy to expand thereby increasing the tax base.
A 10% tax on $50,000, for example, is better than a 12% tax on $40,000.
So, the trick is to find a sweet spot that allows the economy to grow while bringing in more tax receipts.
And you do NOT want to increase taxes rich people and luxury items causing those luxury businesses to go out of business like this event which happened 20 years ago but still applies today:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7D91430F930A35752C0A967958260
trdrstvApr 14, 2011
"you can't keep reducing taxes and at the same time act like Spending is the issue."
Correct, however in a time when you're not reducing taxes (mearly keeping them the same) when you are already facing a budget shortfall it's irresponsible to increase spending.
cosmicsurferApr 14, 2011
You, DN, besides being the king troll (well I guess everyone has to have a calling), have real issues with reading comprehension.
BUT, I digress....How do you think a government can spend less than it takes in?
It is the $14 trillion question. It's easy. Even you can get it!
1. Take in revenue -GUESS when the deficit clock started churning and burning up again?
The second big $14 trillion question...come on David. EVEN YOU can get it...
That's right....When Bush did his unleashing of corporate and MIC vampire feeding on the people, opened the doors to the treasury to the companies in which Cheney held stock and the oil companies AND when he started slaughtering Iraqis by the thousands off budget. When he started allowing Chinese goods to flood the market without paying for them; when he started his own mercenary army to take jobs from the trained military and turning those trained military into lackeys for mercenary pigs and IED scouts
The government lost BILLIONS annually in revenue and spent trillions
2. Cut the fat from the biggest generator and guess who that is? Come on, the 3rd easy peasy question of the day.
The over bloated and out of control Defense Budget! That's right. We could save hundreds of billions of dollars easily by bringing the troops home and canning the Xe's and Whackenbush's, kill the contracts for weaponry to sell to our enemies and give away to both sides of every political disagreement in the world and STILL treat those fat cat psychotic bug-eaters in the tea party Caucus their overpriced c**kroaches for dinner.
See - not so hard
davidnivenApr 15, 2011
Dude, and I mean this sincerely, please lay off the bong pipe before coming on Digg. Your paragraph above is a little too confusing.
And, yes, bringing the troops home and cutting the defense budget would be a good thing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlesdkraussApr 14, 2011
Where were you when Bush cut taxes AND increased spending that caused this problem in the first place and left the next President to deal with the s**t?
tao52nycApr 14, 2011
I was out there complaining bitterly to anyone who would listen, stating that "this will not end well." And it hasn't. Apparently Obummer is following the Bush plan as well. So where were YOU? Where are you NOW?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4bitApr 14, 2011
Actually Obama tried to let the wealthiest cuts expire, which would have at least been an attempt at fixing the problem.
As for me...
I was saying the same thing as you.
ect5150Apr 14, 2011
"Actually Obama tried to let the wealthiest cuts expire, which would have at least been an attempt at fixing the problem."
Doesn't he have veto power over the tax extensions?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4bitApr 14, 2011
I think because he's understanding of compromise. He would have lost the tax cuts to the rest.
Personally... I wish he would have. It would have been a short term wince, but most of us would have been behind him in the long run.
davidnivenApr 14, 2011
"Where were you when Bush cut taxes AND increased spending that caused this problem in the first place and left the next President to deal with the s**t?"
I was busy leaving the Republican party (who I thought was going to stop this nonsense instead of contributing to it) and exploring third party candidates.
Let me be fair. Bush sucked. The vast majority of Republicans sucked too.
But, this doesn't mean the Democrats should be let off the hook. Screw them too.
4bitApr 14, 2011
Finally something I kinda agree with you on.
The only difference I have is that there seems to be a conservative concept that any government program is socialism, and that the government is in capable of doing anything right.
Those points I disagree with. I think there can be public options that help us as a society be more profitable, and competitive, while not forcing private options out of existence.
davidnivenApr 14, 2011
As a conservative, I don't think that any government program is socialism, and I do believe that the government is capable doing things right.
But, there is a difference between using taxpayer money for a road that benefits everyone versus giving taxpayer money directly to a some people to buy things that they should buy themselves.
There is a difference between the government regulating workplace conditions on an assembly line versus using taxpayer money to financially bail out a company because the company was greedy or just plain sucked at business.
There is a difference between the government using taxpayer money to reimburse hospital emergency rooms for emergency care for poor people versus using taxpayer money to pay for poor people's air conditioning, cable television, rent, food, water, and garbage service.
When "poor people" are able to use taxpayer-funded food stamps to buy high quality food like steaks and lasagna while I have to clip coupons and buy generic oatmeal to save $$$, there is a problem inherent in the system.
And don't mention the whole charity thing. When private citizens and companies voluntarily give to the poor, it's charity. When government forcible takes from people who have to give to people who haven't, that's tyranny.
The ends do not justify the means.
4bitApr 14, 2011
Not going to mention charity.
But I'm more likely to say that giving tax breaks to companies the government wants around is more tyrannical than giving money to people to spend it with the companies THEY want around.
But lets take a program like food stamps. For starters... if lasagna is high quality food for you, come on over, and I'll cook. You obviously need your quality meeter reset.
ANYWAY...
Lets set aside the fact that every $1 spent on food stamps puts $1.66 back into the economy... which is in ALL our interests... and focus on your claim of them using food stamps to buy steaks.
But lets take a quick look here:http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226
The take away fact is that 1 person gets $200 (or less, depending on house size) for food stamps.
That breaks down to about 2.33 a meal. Comfortable, but not HOLY s**t amazing...
In 2009, we spent $56 Billion on food stamps, with 90% of it going into the economy (and most figures suggest that every $1 spent on stamps actually creates about 1.66 worth of value in the economy).
But that breaks down to... about 50 cents a day for each of us to make sure the impoverished don't starve.
So I don't know who you see buying steaks every night for dinner with their food stamps, but they're obviously blowing their load on one meal, and are going to have to make the same concessions you are on another one.
jdenzerApr 14, 2011
Yeah "Starve the Beast", great plan. Hasn't worked since Reagan. All it does is force us to get rid of all those 'socialist' programs that you benefit from. I hope you are one of the extremely rich. B/c when the GOP is done gutting the US of all the programs we have come to benefit from. You'll be the first one crying for them back.
faceofboApr 14, 2011
What none of these guys seem to comprehend is when the middle class dies, the wealthy dies as well. They have no one to feed from. The Middle Class is who buys the products and uses the services. The wealthy in this country don't. They don't spend money at departments stores or local dealers and distributors. They don't buy American autos, they do use the utilities that they get pretty much for free since they are part of the write off they get from the Federal tax incentives, deductions, breaks and subsidies. They use the airports for shipping product, they use the roads with overweight and double trailer trucks that degrade the roads more than any family car ever could. Those corporations wouldn't have any income without the purchasing power of the middle class but yet is is the middle class that is dying.
The Middle Class that pays for the roads destroyed, the bridges that cannot be maintained since there are no funds or desire to do so, utilities that these assh**es take for granted. The poor, poor, poor corporations. It is the fools that think the wealthy corporate owners of the government are so abused and have bought the bulls**t that trickle down was more than a con by a poseur with dyed red hair supporting his wealthy, MIC buddies.
It is the same con that has been played for over 30 years and has been proven every day not to work.
jdenzerApr 14, 2011
What I really can't understand. Is they are part of the middle class. It's like the people shouting "Gov, hands off my medicare"
4bitApr 14, 2011
No problem. Build your own roads, teach your own kids, and fight your own wars.
Good luck!
The rest of us want to pool our money so that we have some nice things, and can maybe compete with the rest of the world.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ect5150Apr 14, 2011
The problem here is the spending issues aren't coming from those items - it's the social safety net items.
Military budget? - Could probably be cut in half (what happened in to the anti-war movement when Bush was in office)?
Schools? Those are your local tax dollars, not federal.
Roads? It's a combination of local and federal spending, but those can be push onto the local level if needed - because it's the local area that benefits. A new road in Boston doesn't benefit people in Florida.
4bitApr 14, 2011
There are some federal initiatives for education. No child left behind ring any bells...?
Not to mention college grants and loans, which are federal.
So no... not 100% local.
As for roads being local benefit only... Not so. My potatoes come from Idaho, cheese from Wisconsin, Corn from Iowa, and shipped by trucks from (at one time) Detroit...
Me, this guy here, needs good roads there to keep these things flowing. It doesn't just affect them.
The Anti War movement is still there, but troops are being drawn down in Iraq, and there's a plan on the table to leave Afghanistan, which is something Bush wouldn't even talk about. As for Libya, at this point we' struck some targets by air, and are willing to let France put boots on the ground to train the rebels. If it stays that way, I'm kosher with that.
The other difference is this was to stop someone from gunning down civilians (yes I know there are other places that could have used that help, but we actually caught this AHEAD of time).
As the technology grows, the world seems to shrink. More federal programs are necessary because it IS possible to govern locally AND at a federal level.
Does that mean it should all get centralized? Personally, I don't think so, but then people have to accept some inefficiencies in the system.
To act like the other states could descend into chaos and it wouldn't affect you is insane. We are either a country,and all in this together, or we're not.
rhawk187Apr 14, 2011
I find income taxes to be unfair. You are taking something, by threat of force, without giving the person any choice. You shouldn't penalize people just because they can "afford it." If you want to stick it to the rich, start upping luxury taxes. If you tax luxury apparel for instance, they have a choice not to buy that and not pay the extra taxes. Same thing goes for luxury vehicles, vacation homes, jewelery, basically non-necessities. I'm even for the soda tax. Give people more freedom, don't take their money by threat of force and imprisonment.
That being said, I think having high end engineers and doctors who make ~$250,000 paying the same as someone pulling in tens of millions is silly. So, as much as I don't like them, I wouldn't be opposed to putting in a few slightly higher tax brackets, but just until we pay off the deficit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4bitApr 14, 2011
The reality is the people who make that much use the resources of our country in a greater percentage. Their shipping trucks use our roads more, they take up our real estate with their stores, warehouses, and shipping centers, etc.
This is about being part of a society, and those taking the most from it are the ones that should pay the most for it's upkeep and defense.
If you find that unfair, I don't know what to tell you.
rhawk187Apr 14, 2011
That's the thing though. They do pay the most for it's upkeep and defense. I suppose what I should have said, was I find graduated income taxes unfair.
Even under a system that was purely excise taxes, they'd be paying the most (unless they just sat on the money, which in your example, they weren't doing).
4bitApr 14, 2011
It's part of why I'm in favor of a consumption tax over income. Leaving food, clothing, medical, and one house tax free to benefit those who need it most.
Additionally, it could be done so that those who make under a certain amount could file to have the taxes paid for their income returned to them instead of the government.
But back to your point, a lot of people quote the numbers of the top income earners on what they pay for taxes, and presume it's all income, but don't consider that's also their capital gains, property, etc. ALL of it.
The top 20% of the country have 85% of the wealth. If it were truly fair, the top 20% would pay 85% of the taxes.
rhawk187Apr 14, 2011
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
It's pretty close to that. According to this, the top 25% pay 86% of the taxes.
4bitApr 14, 2011
Interesting. I'd be interested in seeing what overall taxes are, and not just federal income.
jefftsApr 14, 2011
Well, technically, they do pay more. After all, those shipping trucks, stores, warehouses and shipping centers don't run themselves. They pay in the form of jobs, wages and benefits to the American people. If you tax them more, it's less money they can put towards wages and benefits. If you tax them more, that's less job openings they will be able to have. Or, alternately, if you tax them more, they pass that cost on to the consumer causing all Americans, poor or rich, to pay more for products; products which, by the way, are also taxed at the point of sale in most states.
4bitApr 14, 2011
Ok. Market economics means you won't pass that cost on to the consumer.
Specifically because if I can't afford it, I won't buy it. They'll have to keep their prices in line with market demand, which if they're not now, they are probably running themselves out of busines.
So... put towards wages and benefits. You mean like they're doing with the money now... Oh wait... they're not. They're gong to pay themselves, with record CEO profits. Higher than all time. YAY!
As for cutting employee pay, that's why we still need unions.
Ok... so what does that leave us... having to take a cut in their own pay.
Boo hoo. See statement above about record CEO profits, which are growing disproportionately to the wages of their workers.
Now... the concept that they're paying more by paying for the equipment to build the stuff....
Except, what we're talking about is proft. Net... not gross. What they're spending on things that USE those things, isn't actually putting any money into the upkeep of those things.
If I was to use a phrase from the right... Talk about a group wanting something for nothing...!
quisquisApr 15, 2011
What do you think CEOs do with their money?
superkendallApr 15, 2011
Market economics means you HAVE to pass the cost on to the consumer. Evidence is all around you. Oil prices rise, we pay more for food and gas.
hi808Apr 15, 2011
<< Ok. Market economics means you won't pass that cost on to the consumer. . . . Specifically because if I can't afford it, I won't buy it. They'll have to keep their prices in line with market demand, which if they're not now, they are probably running themselves out of business>>
But if they don't pass on the increased cost to the consumer and keep prices in line with market demand, they will be losing money on each sale and will eventually go out of business.
Here's what will happen: in order to keep prices in line with market demand, the business owner will avoid the increased costs. If we're talking about higher taxes and cap-and-trade regulations, that may mean moving the business off-shore. So, people will lose jobs and the government will lose tax revenues.
You sound like someone who once read about supply and demand in a college text book, but has never been involved in actually running a business.
4bitApr 15, 2011
Actually, what will happen is this.
Over the last 20 years CEO salaries have risen disproportionately to the pay of employees.
Like hi808 says, they can't really pass it on to the consumer, because if they could charge us that, they already would.
And, like hi808 points out, if they could afford cheaper labor over seas, they'd do that..
Oh wait... they are already doing that now.
Businesses are there to make money, if they can find cheaper labor, they would have already done that.
And that's the reality.
Trickle down economics, supply side economics, what ever name you wish to give it, doesn't work.
The top 20% have amassed 85% of the wealth in the US. The top 40%, over 95% of the wealth. The bottom 40... less than 1%.
And yet, are they turning all that wealth into jobs for us? No. They're not.
I have run a business, and I know this: The goal is to have as little money leave my pockets as possible, while maximizing how much comes into it.
In an infinite money system, no one suffers from this method. Too bad that's not what it is, but then if it was, money would be worthless.
When someone takes, someone else gives, if we keep giving breaks to the people who need it least, then it has to come from the people who need it most.
If you want read this: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
At very least, look at figures 4 and 9 and see what the issue is.
hi808Apr 15, 2011
Sure, higher taxes and higher labor costs have driven some businesses out of the country. So, you already know that increasing taxes drives companies out of the country. So, if you increase taxes more, more businesses are going to be leaving the country. And as technology improves, it's easier for companies to leave the country.
I don't think it's the government's job to regulate CEO's pay. If the shareholders have no problem paying a CEO a high salary, that's their prerogative. If you don't own shares in the company, why would you care? (It's a whole different story, however, if there is a bailout).
Sorry, I just don't believe in that "from each as to their ability, to each as to their need" bulls**t. You work hard, you get rich; you work harder, you get richer; you work really hard, you get really rich. You also have to reward people who take risks. If you start a business and put your savings at risk, you should get rich if your business succeeds. The government shouldn't say, "okay, you worked hard, took a lot of risks and made a fortune, now give us your money because these people are poor."
You don't work hard, you stay poor. I don't believe that income redistribution is the government's responsibility.
4bitApr 19, 2011
No one's telling them to regulate CEO pay. What we are saying is that if you're disproportionately benefiting from a countries resources and workers, you should disproportionately pay for their defense and upkeep.
The technology of being able to run companies at a distance is why federal government is more important than ever against mega-corporations that are simply bigger than states. A state can't compete or negotiate trade or jobs with a company that could buy and sell them.
But it also goes back to the fact that income and sales tax are broken in this post industrial economy. Internet taxes are confusing, do you pay sales tax on amazon? And if so for which state? Etc... The system needs a rewrite.
"from each as to their ability, to each as to their need" I don't believe it either. What I DO believe is that there is an entry fee to a capitalist society, and that we're strongest as a society when we have the maximum number of people competing. But business are strongest when they have as little competition as possible. So we, as a country, need to do things to get people competing, but then take our hands off and see where they go.
In short we open the door, but we don't drag them through. We offer them opportunities to compete, affordable schooling, and taking concerns away for crime, violence, and health.
We give them the opportunity to have their own voice, and beliefs, and try things we wouldn't have thought of. And when someone succeeds, with the system we ask them to contribute to it's upkeep.
Yes, some people will take advantage of that, just as some at the top have taken advantage of their money and power to avoid competition. But I do believe, when offered a fair opportunity to compete for success, most people will take it, because simply... Being poor sucks.
hi808Apr 15, 2011
<<The reality is the people who make that much use the resources of our country in a greater percentage. Their shipping trucks use our roads more, they take up our real estate with their stores, warehouses, and shipping centers, etc.>>
So impose gas taxes and tolls to make the ones who use the roads pay for the use.
"Take up OUR REAL ESTATE with their stores"? I assume the businesses either own or lease the land where their businesses are located. How is that land your real estate? In any case, the land owners pay property taxes. If they lease the land, they pay rent to their landlord who pays property taxes.
The rich, on the other hand, probably don't use many public services the poor do: public schools, welfare, food stamps, etc.
4bitApr 15, 2011
OUR REAL ESTATE..
That of the United states... and by that comment I mean they need to pay taxes on it the way the rest of us would. And no, they don't always.
But the point is... since they own MORE of it, I expect their taxes to be HIGHER over all.
As for the consumption tax you're suggesting... I'm way down with that, with a few provisions (namely food, clothing, health care and your first house being tax free).
But now, lets talk about the reality of the system we are using, which isn't that. So I stand by my comment. If you can get the change through somehow, I'm all ears.
hi808Apr 15, 2011
<<That of the United states... and by that comment I mean they need to pay taxes on it the way the rest of us would. And no, they don't always. . . . But the point is... since they own MORE of it, I expect their taxes to be HIGHER over all.>>
WTF are you talking about? The taxes are higher. You own more land, you pay more in property taxes. If you own a $2 million house, you pay more property tax than a person who owns a $200,000 house.
<<As for the consumption tax you're suggesting... I'm way down with that, with a few provisions (namely food, clothing, health care and your first house being tax free).>>
I'm not talking about an increased sales tax or VAT. I'm talking about making the people who use the infrastructure the most pay more for using it. So, if you're driving a lot and using the roads more than the average person, you are presumably buying more gas. So, an additional tax on gas would make the people who use the road the most pay more for the roads. The same applies to tolls. There are several other ways to make the people who use government services more than the average person pay more for the government service. For example, increasing the filing fees for civil lawsuits so the people who use the court system more than others bear the cost of court system.
4bitApr 18, 2011
<<WTF are you talking about? The taxes are higher. You own more land, you pay more in property taxes. If you own a $2 million house, you pay more property tax than a person who owns a $200,000 house.>>
It was in response to people who say it's unfair the wealthy pay more taxes. Of course they do, they have more wealth. Which is the point.
<<I'm not talking about an increased sales tax or VAT. I'm talking about making the people who use the infrastructure the most pay more for using it.>>
There isn't always a direct correlation between use and benefit. I benefit from having a road to get to work, but you benefit from having a road so your workers can get there.
I benefit from school because I can afford a better job, you benefit from having a more educated worker force.
Who pays taxes on what there? You can effectively price me out of working with putting a toll on the road.
realcoolguy9022Apr 14, 2011
... and probably something like 5% of the problem over the next 80 years. The problem is every single time the government takes in more money they spend even more. This at the cost of a less productive private sector. I'm not surprised at all that Novenator wants to tax the rich for a short term fix, I'm also wary of these numbers since they likely assume no increased level of spending.
I don't see any shred of fiscal responsibility coming from the Democrat's side of the aisle. Their only noble goal is to rob Peter to pay Paul, and being generous with other people's money is NOT what makes America great, despite the President's speech.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Apr 14, 2011
This article is complete bulls**t plain and simple.
professorpeakApr 14, 2011
And would cause massive unemployment and a collapse of our fragile economy as jobs go overseas. We must get control of the SPENDING...not only the money that the government takes in.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jefftsApr 14, 2011
"I'm not terribly thrilled about paying more taxes, especially when we know the Republicans will simply take the money and declare a few more wars."
So Obama is a Republican now?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
neozeedApr 14, 2011
lol only republicans do wars, and democrats do 'kinetic military actions'? Give me a break, the only way to fix things is to curtail the empire, and cut the precious military & it's adventures.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aryxzaApr 16, 2011
Those tax cuts will not save anything, only prolonging the essence of the problem,Capitalism is dead, only revolutionary act can make new government that is based on fairness prorata wellfare.By people and for the people of United States....blabla
gibusa2010Apr 15, 2011
Welfare for the rich, it never ends. All trick down theories ever did was trickel overseas. :(
gibusa2010Apr 15, 2011
Welfare for the rich, it never ends. All trick down theories ever did was trickel overseas. :(
MyCollegeApr 15, 2011
I can't say I look forward to having my taxes raised, but we've been reaping the benefits of our deficit for so long that it's time we paid up.
srodolffApr 15, 2011
As a counter argument, cutting spending would solve 100% of the deficit immediately and continue for the next 1000 years.
roddackApr 15, 2011
Headline is a bit misleading since it also requires returning the Clinton Era rates in addition to eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts
ddissentApr 15, 2011
If the solution to our pathetic governments mishandling of our great republic over the past 40+ years were only so simple.
bristerApr 15, 2011
Hey nobody like raising taxes. But you know whats really stupid now is cutting them. Thats all the replublicans talk about. We have a massive deficit and even more massive national debt and you want to cut taxes?
You know cutting spending is a good idea and will help reduce the deficit but we still have a huge debt. You are never going to start reducing our national debt without getting rid of those bush tax cuts for the rich. Unless you want to do away with our military or social security then thats the only way to do it.
After our debt is under control then you can talk about reducing taxes.
doanerApr 15, 2011
For news assassins, listen to the No Agenda Show. It will help you not word vomit.
doanerApr 15, 2011
AHHHHHHHHHHH
gkiltzApr 15, 2011
And, thanks to legislation passed during the Reagan Administration, Social Security is financed completely separately.
kasha34Apr 15, 2011
f**k taxing the rich. Just send some troops to their houses and TAKE their s**t. Who the hell they think they are anyway?
kasha34Apr 15, 2011
Who's going to declare more wars? Ahem, who just got us into Libya, hmm?
ashleyashy2013Apr 15, 2011
I totally agree. There is NO reason why the wealthy should have tax cuts, especially when we are dealing with a debt crisis. We should raise taxes (not just on the wealthy but on other things too) before we start cutting because we can use that additional money to keep ourselves from cutting other things too.
babu42Apr 15, 2011
Dear Americans,
It's really very simple. All you have to do is to stop buying stuff you don't need with money you don't have.
Best regards and good luck,
validopinionApr 15, 2011
inafter lots of ignorant comments about bush, tax cuts, smaller than realistic deficit, too much spending, etc.
Time to grow up and wake up and realize the bankers are seizing control a trillion dollars at a time.
superkendallApr 15, 2011
Of course with the tax rates raised, as happens EVERY SINGLE TIME, actual taxes collected falls even lower because businesses will cut back with higher taxes in place. That's the trouble with raising taxes, you always pretend like you will get the same people paying a higher rate on the same amount, and then EVERY SINGLE TIME you act astonished when raising taxes lowers actual revenue collected.
By all means raise taxes, it just means you'll have to cut even more spending over the next few years.
schmuckofniApr 15, 2011
Psst. Sound money. Enough said.