Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Taxing the Rich


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#46    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:27 PM

I see that the subject has been deflected skillfully, so Iíll just ask the Obama followers this real simply.  For what purpose does milking the rich of $75 billion achieve in the big scheme of starting up this economy and/or paying down the debt?

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato

#47    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,975 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:54 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 16 November 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

I see that the subject has been deflected skillfully, so I'll just ask the Obama followers this real simply.  For what purpose does milking the rich of $75 billion achieve in the big scheme of starting up this economy and/or paying down the debt?

I'm not an Obama follower, and I'm not sure how you're defining "the rich", but it seems that if reducing the national debt or making the government solvent are actual goals, then revenue enhancement is part of the equation, with spending cuts being the other part.

A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about money! :tu:


#48    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:15 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 November 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

I'm not an Obama follower,
Ok, fine.

Quote

and I'm not sure how you're defining "the rich",
Why do I feel like you are not paying attention?  The definition that is being used covers the top 2%.  Those are the ones that are being targeted.

Quote

but it seems that if reducing the national debt or making the government solvent are actual goals, then revenue enhancement is part of the equation,
Maybe you just donít 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.  So now, all you need is $425 billion.  Defense is already being drastically cut ($400 billion over 10 years?).  Thatís another $40 billion.  But where are funds supporting Obamacare coming from?

Quote

with spending cuts being the other part.
Why?  It makes no sense.  Do one or the other, not both.  This is no compromise.  It is inefficient and stupid.

Quote

A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about money! :tu:
Then list what the other ďhereĒs and ďthereĒs are.  If you could do that and guarantee that it goes *ONLY* to paying down the debt, then you might have some supporters.  But as it stands now, it is only a power play to cause the GOP to cave so that Obama can come back with more taxes.  That has been his MO.  Thatís politics as usual in Washington.  People need to be aware of how things are done.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato

#49    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:14 PM

I donít want this thread to just slide into oblivion.  My previous post has not been answered.  And of that, the main point needs to be reiterated; that raising taxes on the top 2% will only collect about $75 billion a year.  This is chicken feed.  Obama must think that it is worth driving over the cliff for.  He may be clothed in eminence power but that doesnít mean that he is a dictator.  Heís actually a lame duck and must work with the Republicans for once.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato

#50    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,975 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 November 2012 - 08:11 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 26 November 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I don't want this thread to just slide into oblivion.  My previous post has not been answered.  And of that, the main point needs to be reiterated; that raising taxes on the top 2% will only collect about $75 billion a year.  This is chicken feed.  Obama must think that it is worth driving over the cliff for.  He may be clothed in eminence power but that doesn't mean that he is a dictator.  He's actually a lame duck and must work with the Republicans for once.

I'm back! :tu:

In fact, he IS a dictator, if one may define a dictator as one who can order and execute the death of a citizen or person without any due process.  Semantics I guess, but his assault on the US Constitution makes him a domestic enemy, as described in the oath he took but refuses to honor.

I digress.

I am no economist, but at the moment my house is paid off and I don't owe anybody any money.  The mess that is the US budgetary process has been a joke for many many years.

OK, you define the rich as the top 2%, I assume, by income tax information.

I'm sure you are aware that the federal government was fairly solvent for decades BEFORE there was an income tax.  The point is that to balance a budget, one must spend less than one takes in, or at least no more than one takes in.

So I don't understand your suggestion that revenue is not part of the equation or that spending is not either.  You seem to offer an extremely over-simplified view of this issue that has partisan undertones.  Maybe I'm misreading what you're posting?

Increase the revenue and cut the spending.  It works for me, and why won't it work for the government?


#51    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 November 2012 - 09:29 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 November 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

OK, you define the rich as the top 2%, I assume, by income tax information.
Yes of course, what else would I be referring to?  This is what was established by the President.

Quote

I'm sure you are aware that the federal government was fairly solvent for decades BEFORE there was an income tax.  The point is that to balance a budget, one must spend less than one takes in, or at least no more than one takes in.
Yes, that is correct.  That is why I am for repealing the 16th Amendment, cut spending, and get the government out of the Entitlement and welfare business.

Quote

So I don't understand your suggestion that revenue is not part of the equation or that spending is not either.  You seem to offer an extremely over-simplified view of this issue that has partisan undertones.  Maybe I'm misreading what you're posting?
I think you are misreading what I am saying and the thing is, is that this is very simplistic.  It is not rocket science.  Donít make it more complicated that it really is.

Iím not suggesting that revenue is not part of the equation.  Revenue is not a problem.  What I am suggesting is what is the purpose of going after the rich to only gain $75 billion, when you need something on the order of $500+ billion?  If there are a million here and a million there out there, then letís identify and collect those first.  And not allow the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.  Since this $75 is a contention then set it aside and go after the lionís share of these millions ďhere and thereĒ.  Letís collect the $425 billion first and see where that takes us.

Quote

Increase the revenue and cut the spending.  It works for me, and why won't it work for the government?
We need to either raise revenue or cut spending.  It is illogical to do both.  This would be a wasteful, meaningless compromise.  Cut spending to within our means, lower tax rates to stimulate growth and revenue will take care of itself.  Q.E.D.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato

#52    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 November 2012 - 06:24 AM

View PostRavenHawk, on 26 November 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

I'm not suggesting that revenue is not part of the equation.  Revenue is not a problem.  What I am suggesting is what is the purpose of going after the rich to only gain $75 billion, when you need something on the order of $500+ billion?  If there are a million here and a million there out there, then let's identify and collect those first.  And not allow the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.  Since this $75 is a contention then set it aside and go after the lion's share of these millions "here and there".  Let's collect the $425 billion first and see where that takes us.


Yes of course...it's best to focus on other things first..lets say, military spending. Maybe there's a $25 billion there .. But no, that's too little. Let's focus on the remaining 300 billion first.
Maybe cut fundings for public transport a lil? That could be about another $10 billion. But no, that would be ridiculous to go after the ppl their transportation first. Let's focus on the remaining 290 billion first.
What about ... cutting some dollars in health care? About $50 billion over there. But no, that would be crazy to start cutting health care first..let's concentrate on the remaining 240 billion first and then we'll see where that leaves us... etc..
:rolleyes:


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

Edited by Render, 27 November 2012 - 06:25 AM.


#53    MiskatonicGrad

MiskatonicGrad

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 561 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dunwich USA

  • "the natural progress of things is liberty to yield and goverment to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:14 AM

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.

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread" --Thomas Jefferson(1821)

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session"--Mark Twain(1866)

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson(1800)

#54    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,015 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:22 AM

Like Ryan said in the debate, don`nt let them kid you the taxes are not going to raised on the middle class. I see it comming,taxes will go up on just about everything. The Obama Care will kick in in 2014, another tax.


#55    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 12,870 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:51 AM

The ship is sinking and while one group is bailing with spoons another group is pulling more and more people (weight) into the boat.  It's just a matter of time.  The only thing left to be resolved is what the new global economy paradigm will look like for those who are not wealthy.

  Imagination is the power in the turn of a phrase.

#56    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,975 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:14 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 26 November 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

Yes of course, what else would I be referring to?  This is what was established by the President.


Yes, that is correct.  That is why I am for repealing the 16th Amendment, cut spending, and get the government out of the Entitlement and welfare business.


I think you are misreading what I am saying and the thing is, is that this is very simplistic.  It is not rocket science.  Don't make it more complicated that it really is.

I'm not suggesting that revenue is not part of the equation.  Revenue is not a problem.  What I am suggesting is what is the purpose of going after the rich to only gain $75 billion, when you need something on the order of $500+ billion?  If there are a million here and a million there out there, then let's identify and collect those first.  And not allow the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.  Since this $75 is a contention then set it aside and go after the lion's share of these millions "here and there".  Let's collect the $425 billion first and see where that takes us.


We need to either raise revenue or cut spending.  It is illogical to do both.  This would be a wasteful, meaningless compromise.  Cut spending to within our means, lower tax rates to stimulate growth and revenue will take care of itself.  Q.E.D.

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

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.

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.


#57    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,102 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:54 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 11 November 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

lets see, there are about 150-200,000 high speed transactions per second on a normal trading day. Taxing each with 1 cent that could be $20,000 per second, which would be half of the federal debt increase.

So, it's still a tax and someone will have to pay for it.

And what about the other half?  And what assurances will be given that that money simply won't be spent?

No tax increases should be discussed until cuts are on the table as well.  We've been down the road "increase taxes and we'll cut something later" road before and we've been ****ed every time.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#58    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,287 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:32 AM

The three most common ways Liberals say to decrease the Deficit is to 1) Let tax cuts on the Rich expire, and 2) Tax corporations more, and 3) end foreign wars.

So, then foreign wars have cost (going off a liberal leaning site) 1.4 Trillion since 2001 (almost 12 years), or about 100 Billion per year. Maybe 120 billion to round up for discussion.

Then add in the revenue brought in by taxing the rich.... The reported amount of which is 600 billion over 10 years. Or about 60 Billion per year. For a total of 180 billion per year.

Then add corporate tax increases... which makes up about 8% of the Federal Revenues, or about 8% of 2.2 Trillion, or about 175 Billion. So even DOUBLING that would only add another 175 Billion to the pot.

So then we end up with about 350 Billion extra is tax hikes and ending of foreign wars per year... When we are spending 1.4 Trillion Extra per year. So, even if we do all these Super Duper Liberal Fixes... we still are going to be DOWN a trillion dollars a year. Unless.... unless... we cut other stuff and raise other taxes. Which Obama's voters are not going to like, and so... so... it is not going to happen.

Basically there is not going to be any fix without a LOT of hurt. The Rich can't carry the entire burden, neither can corporations. And ending the various Wars helps in the single digit percentages.

Entitlements are going to HAVE to be looked at and somehow fixed.

There is no way to fix the Deficit to even Bush level spending, AND be "Nice" to the middle class.

Edited by DieChecker, 28 November 2012 - 02:35 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#59    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,952 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 28 November 2012 - 03:45 AM

View Postdocyabut2, 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.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#60    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,952 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 28 November 2012 - 03:48 AM

View PostRavenHawk, 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?

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users