227 replies to this topic

[ninjadude]

docyabut2, on 27 November 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

. The Obama Care will kick in in 2014, another tax.

Please explain how you personally will be taxed?




I thought not.

[ninjadude]

RavenHawk, on 16 November 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Maybe you just don't comprehend the difference between $75 billion and $16 trillion???  What is needed is in the hundreds of Billions and all we need to initially cut down is maybe $5 trillion.  At $500 billion per years would be 10 years.

Your timetable is an artificial construct. 10 years 20 years 50 years 100 years. What is it that you think the debt should be paid in 1 year?

[WHO U KIDDIN]

To resolve the debt crisis all Americans would need to pitch in.

Farm subsidies for the giant agro businesses and corporate welfare for oil companies and countless other businesses should be completely eliminated, our taxpayers funds should not be used to insure that dividends get paid to corporate shareholders.

The burden of this financial crisis should not laid on just the working middle class. The rich just like anybody else should pay a fair share, a tax rate at 40% may should high but that was the rate they paid during the 50's and 60's. People who make over $500,000 of income should pay this rate, those under should pay the 25% of income.

Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don't Spur Growth

Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, according to a new report. But those cuts may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.

A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."
In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth....

The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.

From: http://finance.yahoo...-151649273.html

Edited by WHO U KIDDIN, 04 December 2012 - 01:04 AM.

[DieChecker]

WHO U KIDDIN, on 04 December 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

To resolve the debt crisis all Americans would need to pitch in.

Farm subsidies for the giant agro businesses and corporate welfare for oil companies and countless other businesses should be completely eliminated, our taxpayers funds should not be used to insure that dividends get paid to corporate shareholders.

I'd be in favor of those. The Agro Subsidies are probably around $10 billion a year, and Obama wants to cut that to $5 billion, which some Republicans have even shown favor toward. Big Oil supposedly is harder to nail down. The actual subsidies are somewhat more then $10 billion a year, but many organizations toss all kinds of other stuff in with that (including military defense of sources and pipelines), to get a yearly pricetag of $50 billion.

So cutting both of those we should get $60 billion a year off the Deficit, or about 5% of the Deficit.

We'll also probably be looking at higher farm produce prices and higher fuel prices... out of spite if not because of the cost of defering those lost revenues.

Edited by DieChecker, 04 December 2012 - 01:50 AM.

[MiskatonicGrad]

I don't know, at my house when we run into a debt situation we try to spend less than we take in. It seems to work. I guess I could go steal from my neighbor to increase my revenue. I'm too lazy to get another job. I could hit my employer up to give me more money but, with these current economic times... well the stolen money would be tax free! life of crime here I come.

[sam12six]

Hilander, on 07 November 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

The tax rate will go up, they will use their deductions and they will end up paying less than the average person does.

This is the problem I have with it. Like others have said, there's no lack of deductions for people with a lot of money. The news is full of megacorporations that paid no taxes or even got a refund along with their billions of profit. For really rich people, the income tax rate means nothing.

For the move to have been an actual reform instead of an empty gesture, it should have focused on raising the taxes that rich people actually pay - capital gains, inheritence, gifts - that sort of thing or capping the deductions for any single tax filer. Of course, if he tried that on a Monday, I suspect the forum would be blowing up Tuesday with the breaking news that the President has been shot.

[DieChecker]

sam12six, on 04 December 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

or capping the deductions for any single tax filer.

That is what I think should be done. Fix the existing tax law, don't just pile more useless, unenforcable crap on top.

[ninjadude]

MiskatonicGrad, on 04 December 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

I don't know, at my house when we run into a debt situation we try to spend less than we take in.

National economics are in no way comparable to your household budget.

[MiskatonicGrad]

ninjadude, on 04 December 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

National economics are in no way comparable to your household budget.

Yeah they operate in fairy world it appears. the freaking money keeps appearing as fast as they can spend it.

[DieChecker]

ninjadude, on 04 December 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

National economics are in no way comparable to your household budget.

Only in that it is like a person being able to increase their own credit card limit and being able to print up more money if they need to make a run to the store.

[RavenHawk]

ninjadude, on 28 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

Your timetable is an artificial construct. 10 years 20 years 50 years 100 years. What is it that you think the debt should be paid in 1 year?

Yes, of course it is an artificial construct.  It comes from Washington.  It sounds impressive like our leaders are actually doing something.  When they speak of a $5trillion reduction, it’s over a 10 year period but we all know that they also mean “Revenue Enhancements”.  I would want to see like $1 trillion per year.  At the very least substantial spending cuts put on the table.  I would prefer that the GDP surpass the debt but we would need a Reagan for that.  But you still haven’t answered the question of the OP yet and that is, how far do you think $75 billion per year is going to carry us?

[RavenHawk]

Render, on 27 November 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

(these numbers are of course fictional to prove an overly obvious point)

You had a point??  The obvious point is that we need spending cuts across the board now!  And I hope we do go off the fiscal cliff so that those cuts go into effect.  The government is hurting the people by spending so much on Entitlements and welfare.

[RavenHawk]

Babe Ruth, on 27 November 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Well, you might be referring to an individuals net worth, for example, instead of the income tax.  

I’m referring to the income tax tables which everyone else is.  Or at least those that are asking the question of how much will be raised.

Quote

Very rich individuals do not pay much of an income tax, if they have a good accountant, which they all do.  Capital gains, deferred income and many others are the game they play.

Overall, the poorest end up with about the same amount of breaks in the tax rate that the top 1% do.  I’m not looking at the data right now, but both get about a 12% break off of their tax bracket.

Quote

Revenue is not a problem?  Then why are we talking about it?  IF revenue were to equal expenditures, THEN it would not be a problem.  Because it does not, and we have been practicing deficit spending for generations now, it is certainly a problem.

We shouldn’t be.  But you have the wrong point of view.  It should be that the expenditures should be within revenue.  That is why deficit spending is a problem.

Quote

And so are expenditures a problem.  I would say the latter is far more a problem than the former, but they are both a problem if we are to survive the inevitable.

It’s not “and so”, it is THEe problem.  If we are to survive then we need to cut both.

[RavenHawk]

WHO U KIDDIN, on 04 December 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

The burden of this financial crisis should not laid on just the working middle class. The rich just like anybody else should pay a fair share, a tax rate at 40% may should high but that was the rate they paid during the 50's and 60's. People who make over $500,000 of income should pay this rate, those under should pay the 25% of income.

So you don’t think that the top 10% paying 70% of the tax burden is fair?  BTW, the tax rate of the rich in the 50s and 60s ranged in the 70% to 90%.

Quote

Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, according to a new report. But those cuts may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.

Interesting that it uses the adjective “faster”??  So it doesn’t deny that it does promote economic growth.  Lower taxes still gives positive growth?  Isn’t that preferable?    You also forgot that the environment also effects growth.  I.e., if there is a threat of taxes going up, then investors will be less likely to invest.  Does the report cover that?

Quote

A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."
In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth....

And I can tell you that without reading it that the study is very skewed.  What was going on between 1945 and 1971 as what was going on from 1972 to 1980 as what was going on from 1981 to 2007?

1945 to 1971:  We were in debt from the Depression, The New Deal, and WWII.  It took us until 1971 to pay down that debt.  Tax rates for the rich were 90%.  But the cash was flowing.  Manufacturing was at its peak because we were rebuilding not only ourselves but also Europe, Japan, and China.  It was good times.

1972 to 1980: Manufacturing for rebuilding wasn’t needed as much and we were getting competition from others like Japan.  But tax rates remained high which incurred inflation and higher gas prices, etc.

1981 to 2007: The Reagan Boom, tax rates were drastically cut.  Pay got better.  More people could invest.  The Stock Market skyrocketed.  You can only make money if you invest money.

Of course there is a lot  more going on, but this study only averages out these different periods (as if there weren’t separate periods), so of course there is little evidence.

Quote

The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.

The rich will always get richer.  Why be concerned about that?  In fact that is what you want to happen.  Because our rich get richer, creates a standard of living for the poor in this nation that they are better off than some 80% of the rest of the world.  Our poor would be the wealthy in most other nations.

[F3SS]

MiskatonicGrad, on 27 November 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

We can discuss who needs to pay more or less and what is the best most fair way for the goverment to steal our money until we are blue in the face. but until the goverment learns to live with in it's means like the majority of americans including the top 2% it really doesn't mean anything. How far are we going to let the goverment go with this idea of finding new ways to increase revenue(steal more of our money). well let me tell you if the current trend continues I predict it will end with the goverment usurping all wealth and creating another socialist utopia that will last about as long as all the other ones.

You're right they'll never learn or rather act responsibly as I know they know full well how they are screwing us.
The lefties and socialists will cry the EVERYBODY NEEDS TO CHIP IN FAIR SHARE WHAA WHAA BLAH BLAH taxes are patriotic broken record bs. But the problem is that tax payers always have and always will chip in sometimes a whole lot and sometimes a little but that doesn't matter because every dime we've given them they've spent. That's fine though. They are supposed to spend it. The problem is that they have also irresponsibly made astronomically large purchases on credit and then tell us what a jam they're in and that somebody needs to pay for their mistakes, the rich and really all of us throughout time. And so taxes go up and they do the same thing all over again. No, they just continue doing the same things as they never got out of debt and started over. Then they ask for more and so on and so on until we become 16 trillion in debt and half the country has had enough of being told it's their patriotic duty to keep bailing them out when they never use the bail money as they should. There is no end in sight. It will go on and on until everything crashes. So lets put further spending aside and give Obama his 1.6 trillion in new taxes over the next ten years. Is it just me or would that not take 100 consecutive years of the same policy with no inflation and no interest and absolutely zero spending on anything to pay off? The only way to even consider balancing out is all troops at home, no wars, no foreign aid except for private donations, strictly constitutional spending on true general welfare and only necessary additions and infrastructure maintenance, reasonable wages for those in office, no extravagant tax paid vacations or entertainment, a major reform of the tax code thereby granting a business and consumer friendly capitalistic marketplace, no lobbying and the utmost consideration to the appropriation of tax dollars and balancing budget sheets to the dollar all the while paying as much as possible towards every owed debt until we are free and clear of them all. Is that too much?

Edit: meant to ask how the minuscule amounts of money from the rich guarantee anything but class envy and division?

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 04 December 2012 - 07:56 PM.