Biden: Be Patriotic, Pay More Taxes

[Startraveler]

You wouldn't be saying this if we were talking about food, medicine or water. I'm sure of that.

I'm not saying it. Those are T. Boone Pickens' words and I was curious what your reaction to it would be. Thank you.

[danielost]

Raise taxes on the rich prices go up. There goes your tax cuts.

[rideron]

Obama's plan of giving 'tax refund' checks to people who do not pay taxes to begin with = a transfer of wealth.

[Guardsman Bass]

Obama's plan of giving 'tax refund' checks to people who do not pay taxes to begin with = a transfer of wealth.

You talk as though "transfer of wealth" is an automatically bad thing. I don't think it is - governments have a responsibility to all their citizens, and since the rich gain the most from the society and system they live in (not to mention generally having the most influence and the like), it's only fair that they pay a higher tax rate.

[Caesar]

In the 1980s - but I'm not arguing that. I don't see a decline in GDP - I see a rise in the ratio of national debt to GDP.

I thought you said " the US did quite nicely in terms of economic expansion and income from the post-war period until the 1970s"

The only up trend I can see in GDP growth was when Regan took office before that the economy wasn't so great, inflation, debt, cost of living and no real GDP growth. GDP as a % of debt isn't really an economic expansion. GDP is the best way to measure growth of a nation and its economy.

[Incorrigible1]

You talk as though "transfer of wealth" is an automatically bad thing. I don't think it is - governments have a responsibility to all their citizens, and since the rich gain the most from the society and system they live in (not to mention generally having the most influence and the like), it's only fair that they pay a higher tax rate.

Make yourself feel better! Send me money. I accept Paypal.

[Guardsman Bass]

I thought you said " the US did quite nicely in terms of economic expansion and income from the post-war period until the 1970s"

The only up trend I can see in GDP growth was when Regan took office before that the economy wasn't so great, inflation, debt, cost of living and no real GDP growth. GDP as a % of debt isn't really an economic expansion. GDP is the best way to measure growth of a nation and its economy.

I thought that graph was only tracking debt growth and debt-to-GDP ratio growth. I don't remember it actually showing a GDP growth graph covering the period in question (the post-war period, from 1945-1970s, usually 1973).

[Caesar]

I thought that graph was only tracking debt growth and debt-to-GDP ratio growth. I don't remember it actually showing a GDP growth graph covering the period in question (the post-war period, from 1945-1970s, usually 1973).

Thier are a few graphs on that link that show Debt, GDP growth and the gdp of debt

[IrishAidan07]

Biden = pig.

HTH.

[Guardsman Bass]

Thier are a few graphs on that link that show Debt, GDP growth and the gdp of debt

I see three charts. The first shows the national debt in absolute numbers. The second is a bar chart of United States National Debt versus the percentage of GDP is equated to. The third shows whether debt went up or down under a certain president and when a certain party held either the Senate, House, or Presidency.

I don't see a chart of GDP growth, which is what I'm looking for - my point was that solid GDP and income growth continued in the postwar period up until the early 1970s in spite of steeply progressive taxation and very high top bracket rates.

[MasterPo]

Make yourself feel better! Send me money. I accept Paypal.

Me too! Me too!

[MasterPo]

You talk as though "transfer of wealth" is an automatically bad thing.

That is probably the most frieghtening thing I have read on this site yet!!!

How dare you presume to have a calling to take hard earned money out of my wallet and hand it over to someone else just because I have a few bills more than they do?!?!?!?!!!!!

[Guardsman Bass]

That is probably the most frieghtening thing I have read on this site yet!!!

How dare you presume to have a calling to take hard earned money out of my wallet and hand it over to someone else just because I have a few bills more than they do?!?!?!?!!!!!

Oh, cry me a ****ing river. That wealth wouldn't even exist were it not for the government protecting your property rights, as well as your life, from external threats - and that's just the beginning, including things such as sanitation and employment laws, health care systems in case you have a bad turn of events and lose all your money (and don't say it won't happen - you could get cancer tomorrow), unemployment insurance in case you get laid off - the list goes on. Society has a role to play in creating a more equitable and prosperous role for all its citizens, and using things such as a degree of wealth redistribution to do it can help (look at Denmark, where they seem to get a pretty decent welfare state plus a relatively decent place for doing business). It helps everyone by creating a more stable place to live, even for ingrates like yourself.

[Whangarei]

Oh, cry me a ****ing river. That wealth wouldn't even exist were it not for the government protecting your property rights, as well as your life, from external threats - and that's just the beginning, including things such as sanitation and employment laws, health care systems in case you have a bad turn of events and lose all your money (and don't say it won't happen - you could get cancer tomorrow), unemployment insurance in case you get laid off - the list goes on. Society has a role to play in creating a more equitable and prosperous role for all its citizens, and using things such as a degree of wealth redistribution to do it can help (look at Denmark, where they seem to get a pretty decent welfare state plus a relatively decent place for doing business). It helps everyone by creating a more stable place to live, even for ingrates like yourself.

That's rude. Wow it sounds like a lot of people feel entitled to what other people have worked to earn. Survival of the fittest. The stronger smarter better workers are not required to take care of the people sitting on computers all day whining about how someone owes them something because they are breathing and live in the same country as the rich dude. Very amusing.

[MasterPo]

That wealth wouldn't even exist were it not for the government protecting your property rights, as well as your life, from external threats - and that's just the beginning, including things such as sanitation and employment laws, health care systems in case you have a bad turn of events and lose all your money (and don't say it won't happen - you could get cancer tomorrow), unemployment insurance in case you get laid off - the list goes on. Society has a role to play in creating a more equitable and prosperous role for all its citizens, and using things such as a degree of wealth redistribution to do it can help (look at Denmark, where they seem to get a pretty decent welfare state plus a relatively decent place for doing business). It helps everyone by creating a more stable place to live, even for ingrates like yourself.

This is at the core of the problem.

People like youself believe that wealth and prosperity and greatness flow from government to the people; That what you and I have is at the pleasure of what government allows us to have; That without an all-involved centralized authoritarian government there would be no wealth and prosperity.

I do not subscribe to such beliefs.

I said before, government does have some role to play else we wouldn't be a nation.

But it is the hard working people that create weathly and lead a nation into prosperity. Government has never and can never create wealth. All it can do is take wealth from Person-A and give it to Person-B. The best thing government can do is get out of the way of the people's lives.

Edited September 20, 2008 by MasterPo

[Dusty Digital]

This is at the core of the problem.

People like youself believe that wealth and prosperity and greatness flow from government to the people; That what you and I have is at the pleasure of what government allows us to have; That without an all-involved centralized authoritarian government there would be no wealth and prosperity.

I do not subscribe to such beliefs.

I said before, government does have some role to play else we wouldn't be a nation.

But it is the hard working people that create weathly and lead a nation into prosperity. Government has never and can never create wealth. All it can do is take wealth from Person-A and give it to Person-B. The best thing government can do is get out of the way of the people's lives.

I'm curious as to why you think the government has never and never can create wealth? The government is an institution founded by and run by the people after all. Its not some exogenous being outside the economy. Government spending and investments are often wealth-generating through employment effects and contracts to private companies, especially in times of recession when the private market is immobilized due to low confidence.

Wealth, prosperity and greatness flow both ways.

[Startraveler]

Government spending and investments are often wealth-generating through employment effects and contracts to private companies, especially in times of recession when the private market is immobilized due to low confidence.

Indeed.

[BlindMessiah]

The job of the government is to protect our borders, deliver our mail, enforce our laws, and stay the hell out of our lives. The job of government is not to decide who should have my money and who shouldn't. Maybe if they hadn't run this country into the ground in the first place, incurring over nine trillion dollars in debt, we could cut out the income tax all together. We wouldn't need income redistribution if people actually got to keep their own money.

[Incorrigible1]

The job of the government is to protect our borders, deliver our mail, enforce our laws, and stay the hell out of our lives. The job of government is not to decide who should have my money and who shouldn't. Maybe if they hadn't run this country into the ground in the first place, incurring over nine trillion dollars in debt, we could cut out the income tax all together. We wouldn't need income redistribution if people actually got to keep their own money.

Another damn Constitutionalist. (I'm one, too.)

[BlindMessiah]

Another damn Constitutionalist. (I'm one, too.)

There's starting to be a lot of us little demons running around this country. It's all gone to hell.

[MasterPo]

I'm curious as to why you think the government has never and never can create wealth? The government is an institution founded by and run by the people after all. Its not some exogenous being outside the economy. Government spending and investments are often wealth-generating through employment effects and contracts to private companies, especially in times of recession when the private market is immobilized due to low confidence.

Only businesses can create wealth and meaningful jobs. Yes, government can hire people for job programs but giving people jobs isn't the function of government.

Government is not a business concern. It does not need to make a profit, and certainly does not need to grow it's own wealth and value. And growth of it's own wealth comes from taxing the people.

Government does not "invest". I so wish people would stop using that phrase with government. At best it's a euphamism. At worst, a gross misunderstanding of what "investment" means. As I've said before, some things are too big for individuals or communitties to do on their own, like build dams and bridges. So it falls to government to do that. While I agree that dams and bridges can lead to better commerce which is good for all, having government build a dam or bridge isn't an "investment". It's a necessary national infrastructure.

[Startraveler]

While I agree that dams and bridges can lead to better commerce which is good for all, having government build a dam or bridge isn't an "investment". It's a necessary national infrastructure.

And do you classify "jet aviation, semiconductors, computers, the Internet, global positioning systems, laser technology, MRI technologies, high-strength steel alloys, fiber-reinforced plastics, nanotechnologies" the same way?

[ninjadude]

Government does not "invest". I so wish people would stop using that phrase with government. At best it's a euphamism. At worst, a gross misunderstanding of what "investment" means. As I've said before, some things are too big for individuals or communitties to do on their own, like build dams and bridges. So it falls to government to do that. While I agree that dams and bridges can lead to better commerce which is good for all, having government build a dam or bridge isn't an "investment". It's a necessary national infrastructure.

Governments most certainly do invest in securities as well as infrastructure. We do you get these incorrect insights? Now if you had said governments "should" not invest in securities or should invest less....

[MasterPo]

And do you classify "jet aviation, semiconductors, computers, the Internet, global positioning systems, laser technology, MRI technologies, high-strength steel alloys, fiber-reinforced plastics, nanotechnologies" the same way?

You're right. Afterall, Al Gore invented the Net!

[MasterPo]

Governments most certainly do invest in securities as well as infrastructure. We do you get these incorrect insights? Now if you had said governments "should" not invest in securities or should invest less....

Are you taking lawyer lessons from SoCrazes?

No, government doesn't invest - not the way you or I would at least.

You or I would invest in a security to expand our personal wealth. Government doesn't invest to expand it's nest egg. It does use securities for a variety of project and operational finacing reasons. That's just cash management.

The only possible real investing is government pension plans. But that's the nature of a pension and anyway is (supposed to be at least) managed for the benefit of the beneficiaries, not the operators of the plan.