Taxing the Rich

[RavenHawk]

but it hasn't

At what point do you consider that there’s a problem? When the ship begins to list or when the decks are awash?

not when you can print more it doesn't.

Especially when you *can* print more. That’s the problem, you just can’t keep printing money. You’re aware of what happens when nations over print money? It’ll take a wagon load of script to buy a loaf of bread. That is not a healthy economy, but we’re heading that way – over the real fiscal cliff.

because of something passed a 100 years ago? yeah right.

Well, people have been upset over it ever since. It took 14 years to repeal the 18th. The last Amendment was proposed in 1789 and wasn’t enacted until 1992. The pendulum will begin to swing back (again) but before then, I’ll bet that someone will try to get the 22nd Amendment repealed.

And you act as if it has some deep meaning. It does not. You have a problem with definitions of simple terms like arbitrary and socialism.

You just don’t understand do you? This is the time frame Washington uses. That’s the deep meaning. The only problems with definitions are yours.

so now MATH was different 60 years ago? whew!

Again, your lack of understanding is evident. The comment had nothing to do with math.

I had to break to your hard head but they are now as well. This is a proven fact.

More of your ignorance. It is not a proven fact. Because of inflation, a dollar then is monetarily more today. Or today’s money is worth a lot less. You’re the one saying that we’re printing more money under fractional banking. Since the Socialist induced recession any appearance of prosperity, it is just an illusion compared to the prosperity of the 50s or even during the Reagan boom. Now the Socialists throw this phony fiscal cliff at us to divide and conquer.

No it left because of business raiders like Bain capital. Just like what happened to Hostess.

Ok fine, let’s have it your way. Why did business raiders like Bain Capital move manufacturing off shore? Why did Hostess go out of business?

What spending would that be?

The kind that is spent on Entitlements and welfare, Doh! With all the raiding Congress has done to things like SS, if you noticed, the US budget is one bank roll. SS has nothing but IOUs in it. There is no separation between income and FICA. This is a prime example that the government should have never gone into the Entitlement business.

The consevabubble and the wacko world you live in are NOT reality.

The reality I live in has the Constitution as its center piece. I would expect you to call it wacko.

[RavenHawk]

Getting back to the op. Raising taxes on the top 2% (those making $250K or more) will only collect between $75B to $80B. In the “deal” making going on you’re hearing the Socialists are compromising on raising taxes on those making $400K (~ the top ½ of 1%) or even those making $1M or more. So here are the simple, logical questions. If 2% gives you $80B, what good is reducing that to .5% or less? That would probably be between $10B and $20B. What does raising taxes on the top 2% gives us? That $80B does nothing to help with the deficit or the multi-trillion debt. So why do it? What is the reasoning behind doing it? Is there anyone willing to give a logical, rational, non Socialist propaganda answer?

[questionmark]

Getting back to the op. Raising taxes on the top 2% (those making $250K or more) will only collect between $75B to $80B. In the "deal" making going on you're hearing the Socialists are compromising on raising taxes on those making $400K (~ the top ½ of 1%) or even those making $1M or more. So here are the simple, logical questions. If 2% gives you $80B, what good is reducing that to .5% or less? That would probably be between $10B and $20B. What does raising taxes on the top 2% gives us? That $80B does nothing to help with the deficit or the multi-trillion debt. So why do it? What is the reasoning behind doing it? Is there anyone willing to give a logical, rational, non Socialist propaganda answer?

So those whose taxes must also be risen, namely the middle class, to pay for the mess the politicians have gotten us into, can see that it is not only them who get screwed every time having no real influence in Washington.

[RavenHawk]

So those whose taxes must also be risen, namely the middle class, to pay for the mess the politicians have gotten us into, can see that it is not only them who get screwed every time having no real influence in Washington.

That is usually what happens, but that doesn’t answer the question. How much of the mess the politicians (both sides of the isle) got us into will the $80B get us out of?

[questionmark]

That is usually what happens, but that doesn't answer the question. How much of the mess the politicians (both sides of the isle) got us into will the $80B get us out of?

Not much, but raise your aim to $800 billion that have to raised to just balance the budget.

[RavenHawk]

Not much, but raise your aim to $800 billion that have to raised to just balance the budget.

In other words, $80B will do squat, so why even try to levy them? Well, that’s been my point. In order to get that $800B from the top 2%, you would need to raise the rate by 50% putting the highest tax bracket at 85%. That is hardly fair. This is not the 1950s, and you would see many of our wealthy leave these shores (along with jobs), because this isn’t the 1950s.

[F3SS]

So those whose taxes must also be risen, namely the middle class, to pay for the mess the politicians have gotten us into, can see that it is not only them who get screwed every time having no real influence in Washington.

So just screw somebody else to make others feel better?! That's terrible. I can understand the feel good factor in that but it's crap and I'm surprised any reasonable person would support that, even you Q, because its ineffective towards the real problems. Everybody should be standing up to tell the elected that they aren't there to play games with people's emotions. They caused the problem, they've screwed the middle class a lot and their solution is to screw the rich to make the middle feel better all while never accomplishing a damn thing. Seriously, they've got half the country thinking that's the way to go. Something's wrong.

[+DieChecker]

What does raising taxes on the top 2% gives us? That $80B does nothing to help with the deficit or the multi-trillion debt. So why do it? What is the reasoning behind doing it? Is there anyone willing to give a logical, rational, non Socialist propaganda answer?

Like I posted in one of these threads... it will quickly get those who are super rich to Move somewhere where the expense is less. Barbados, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Panama.... They simply take their money and go establish a residence elsewhere, but then continue to run their businesses remotely. Or through "Business Trips" that last months at a time. There are ways around these things...

It is like cigarettes... there is a tax on cigs to pay for anti-cig programs, but as cig use decreases, the tax has gone higher and higher, because the anti-cig programs do not cut back at the same rate. Thus causing the expense of cigs to go up and causing more people to quit. Thus causing the tax to have to be raised... The same could happen with wealth. Tax the rich so that many go elsewhere, then escalate the tax to keep Revenue level, which forces more of the rich to leave. Which causes the tax to be escalated again...

[MiskatonicGrad]

Getting back to the op. Raising taxes on the top 2% (those making $250K or more) will only collect between $75B to $80B. In the "deal" making going on you're hearing the Socialists are compromising on raising taxes on those making $400K (~ the top ½ of 1%) or even those making $1M or more. So here are the simple, logical questions. If 2% gives you $80B, what good is reducing that to .5% or less? That would probably be between $10B and $20B. What does raising taxes on the top 2% gives us? That $80B does nothing to help with the deficit or the multi-trillion debt. So why do it? What is the reasoning behind doing it? Is there anyone willing to give a logical, rational, non Socialist propaganda answer?

RavenHawk you will never get an logical answer to that question simply because it does not exist. There is not one liberal that can give an answer to the simply question "How can raising taxes on anybody help the economy?". Ive asked the question myself several times on other threads and all I get is the sound of crickets. their utter lack of understanding the economy is evident when they preach how much damage Reaganomics did to this country.?!

even though america was living high on the hog for 2 decades because of it they still say he had it wrong. lowering taxes bad. getting people to work for a living bad. raising taxes good. putting everbody on welfare good.?

[MiskatonicGrad]

Like I posted in one of these threads... it will quickly get those who are super rich to Move somewhere where the expense is less. Barbados, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Panama.... They simply take their money and go establish a residence elsewhere, but then continue to run their businesses remotely. Or through "Business Trips" that last months at a time. There are ways around these things...

It is like cigarettes... there is a tax on cigs to pay for anti-cig programs, but as cig use decreases, the tax has gone higher and higher, because the anti-cig programs do not cut back at the same rate. Thus causing the expense of cigs to go up and causing more people to quit. Thus causing the tax to have to be raised... The same could happen with wealth. Tax the rich so that many go elsewhere, then escalate the tax to keep Revenue level, which forces more of the rich to leave. Which causes the tax to be escalated again...

what is going to happen when everbody stops smoking? how is the goverment going to get the revenue for the anti-cig campaign? because you know just because there isn't a problem doesn't mean the goverment won't make it in to one.

[ninjadude]

RavenHawk you will never get an logical answer to that question simply because it does not exist. There is not one liberal that can give an answer to the simply question "How can raising taxes on anybody help the economy?". Ive asked the question myself several times on other threads and all I get is the sound of crickets.

Answered many times. Cut military spending by 50%

[AsteroidX]

You get much taxes without jobs

[F3SS]

How can raising taxes on anybody help the economy?"

Cut military spending by 50%

That is not a logical answer to the question.

[RavenHawk]

Answered many times. Cut military spending by 50%

I said logical. This is insane. But let’s look at your proposal. That would be about $300B. Again $300B alone doesn’t help, although it is closer and it you add the $80B with the rich tax, you have $380B, but you need more. But the danger to that is that it weakens us and enables our enemies, but let’s continue. I would give you the $380B if you gave a proportional cut across the board. That would add an additional $600B from Entitlements and welfare. That’s almost $1T. But that won’t work on several levels.

But let’s do something a little better. Entitlements and welfare are obligations this government owes to the people. That’s the reason the government needs to get out of the business. They need to be phased out and replaced with the private sector. Nullify Obamacare and replace it with more free market friendly regulations (many of the GOP ideas removed in the first place). Keep the Bush tax cuts and cut corp taxes to stimulate growth. Trim active troops to under 200,000 with a guard and reserve force of 1,000,000. Mothball about 3 carrier groups. Increase R&D a bit and trim and or consolidate the number of overseas bases.

The first year, you could perhaps see about $500B and then it would initially drop to say $200B but then as obligations become fulfilled, that would rise back up. As more business starts and jobs are added, the tax base would broaden and $500B a year to pay down the debt could be maintained. We don’t need to cut the entire debt in one fell swoop but $500B a year would show that we are serious. This is just a rough idea but this is what needs to be done in a recession. What Obama should have been doing in the first place.

[Yamato]

$300 billion doesn't help? Uhh yeah it does. With attitudes like that, nothing will help. We need spending cuts everywhere, a million dollars at a time and every million helps.

Military spending should be capped at the next largest spender on military, China, plus $100 billion. That's my bill for Congress to mull on. That would cap us at what, $200-300 billion in military spending this year? Sounds like ENOUGH to keep all our paranoids and ingrates "safe".

[AsteroidX]

The House is doing the Process Right. They are following there commitment to proper government. They will send the Fiscal Cliff too the Senate. I congradulate them on proper government when they could act just as incapable of administering this government as the rest of them and noone would of noticed. I am speaking of the general public would not have noticed.

[Yamato]

The fact that there is a "fiscal cliff" at all shows there is no commitment to proper government.

When our lovely Congress proves itself capable of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment, they'll meet my definition of "proper government".

Ya know, the same thing I have to do --> pay my bills. Imagine that.

[AsteroidX]

There still is no tgaxes without jobs

[Yamato]

The only sustainable job that the government can create is war, and as a country, we've grown far too complacent in allowing that racket to continue.

Jobs come from the private sector where all the productivity is. Government has no business investing in the private sector, controlling the private sector, fixing prices in the private sector, or picking winners and losers in the private sector. Government taxes productivity, by taking money away from the productive centers where it would otherwise be reinvested to create even more productivity. Let's keep government's place where it belongs but we must first understand and agree on what the role of government ought to be.

Government isn't the world's police officer, for starters. Every cheerleader of the Military Industrial Complex will take immediate exception to that, and based on where all the money's going they're winning that argument.

[AsteroidX]

I agree with everything you say you should try being out west. its a wonderful gig

Edited December 20, 2012 by AsteroidX

[RavenHawk]

$300 billion doesn't help? Uhh yeah it does. With attitudes like that, nothing will help. We need spending cuts everywhere, a million dollars at a time and every million helps.

Yes, we need cuts everywhere but a million dollars at a time will not help. We need hundreds of billions across the board but that alone is not helpful. When you cut something, it creates a void. Cutting defense too much and you create a void that our enemies will just waltz right in. That is a given, just simple physics. Cutting Entitlements and welfare is a little more complicated, because as a part of phasing out, Entitlements are obligations that need to be met. For the individual, it’s weaning off the government. For the government it is cutting. And faith based charities should be utilized for welfare. Besides, Entitlements and welfare are not a charge of this government.

Military spending should be capped at the next largest spender on military, China, plus $100 billion. That's my bill for Congress to mull on. That would cap us at what, $200-300 billion in military spending this year? Sounds like ENOUGH to keep all our paranoids and ingrates "safe".

So that’s about $250B. Do you really understand what you are saying there? The minute we reduce that much will enable all our enemies to start making plans. You know who David was? We slew Goliath. There will be a line of Davids taking their turn. Spending $100B more than your next competitor is a poor guarantee. When I think of $250B being spent, I envision the state of our military in the 1930s. Using trucks for tanks, soup cans for shells, and broom sticks for rifles. I know the American people can make the wrong choices from time to time, but I wouldn’t call them ingrates.

[RavenHawk]

The fact that there is a "fiscal cliff" at all shows there is no commitment to proper government.

But there is no fiscal cliff or at least what we are facing now is not the fiscal cliff that we need to worry about. Even if the Bush tax cuts are repealed for everyone, that’s $300 per person. That $300 would be nice to have but this is all politics. This is all show to hide the fact that taxes will be going up by a whole lot more than just $300 bucks on everyone. There is no proper government and the American people voted it back in, so we deserve everything we are about to receive.

When our lovely Congress proves itself capable of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment, they'll meet my definition of "proper government".

Well, that is my 28th Amendment…

Ya know, the same thing I have to do --> pay my bills. Imagine that.

Absolutely!

[RavenHawk]

The only sustainable job that the government can create is war, and as a country, we've grown far too complacent in allowing that racket to continue.

Well, we are a warring people among a planet of warring people. Do you realize as someone had done the research, that in the last 5500 years, there have only been 6 days totally conflict free. Given that track record, it would be foolish to not stay as strong as we possibly can. This government is charged will five purposes. One of them is defense; I would expect to see at least 20% of the budget devoted to defense. Right now we are below that, so that tells me that we are right where it needs to be.

Jobs come from the private sector where all the productivity is. Government has no business investing in the private sector, controlling the private sector, fixing prices in the private sector, or picking winners and losers in the private sector. Government taxes productivity, by taking money away from the productive centers where it would otherwise be reinvested to create even more productivity. Let's keep government's place where it belongs but we must first understand and agree on what the role of government ought to be.

I whole heartedly agree. Government tends to approach 100% control over the people when left unchecked. It has been left unchecked for far too long, now we have a Socialist for President. This is not Europe. Yes, without government there can be no freedom but government must be put in its proper place, that of non infringement on the people. Dealing in Entitlements and dole is infringement. Dealing in maintaining justice, defense, roads, and infrastructure is not.

Government isn't the world's police officer, for starters. Every cheerleader of the Military Industrial Complex will take immediate exception to that, and based on where all the money's going they're winning that argument.

And here is where we disagree. It is not the government that is the world’s policeman. It is that military industrial complex. It is an expenditure of the government, under the defense budget. It has formed a very profitable relationship with the private sector. It is nothing to fear, it hasn’t breached the limits that Eisenhower warned us of. I should know, I am part of this military industrial complex and we don’t make $20,000 hammers. But being the world’s policeman has paid a peace dividend that has lasted for some 70 years. It hasn’t prevented all conflict, but American Hegemony has provided stability across the globe. That has been the best return on investment this government has made. Why end that? I think we have no right to refuse or renege on being the world’s police force. No one else is capable. Can we cut back a little? I think so. You can stick your head in the sand but that won’t make the barbarian disappear. There will always be the barbarian at the gate and he has to come through us first. If we cut our budget by more than half, that won’t give pause to the barbarian; he will just redouble his effort to bring us down.

But the external danger is not the only danger. The internal danger comes if we let Socialism take more control of our government. All that has to happen is repeal the 22nd Amendment, then we are just one step from dictatorship and the Socialists have shown that they can manipulate the Electorate by controlling the low information voter. Once that happens, then we no longer become a benevolent force for good and will end up as any other Empire and we should all fear the military industrial complex then. But by the same token, we are under so much debt that this Empire will collapse faster than Rome did and that will bring on a new Dark Age. If that happens, then the Socialists will have won. The Barbarian will have won and conflict will increase and we will return to a point in history several hundred years earlier where individual liberty is always threatened.

[Yamato]

Yes, we need cuts everywhere but a million dollars at a time will not help. We need hundreds of billions across the board but that alone is not helpful. When you cut something, it creates a void. Cutting defense too much and you create a void that our enemies will just waltz right in. That is a given, just simple physics. Cutting Entitlements and welfare is a little more complicated, because as a part of phasing out, Entitlements are obligations that need to be met. For the individual, it's weaning off the government. For the government it is cutting. And faith based charities should be utilized for welfare. Besides, Entitlements and welfare are not a charge of this government.

So that's about $250B. Do you really understand what you are saying there? The minute we reduce that much will enable all our enemies to start making plans. You know who David was? We slew Goliath. There will be a line of Davids taking their turn. Spending $100B more than your next competitor is a poor guarantee. When I think of $250B being spent, I envision the state of our military in the 1930s. Using trucks for tanks, soup cans for shells, and broom sticks for rifles. I know the American people can make the wrong choices from time to time, but I wouldn't call them ingrates.

Waltz right in where? Afghanistan? Don't care. In fact that's a lovely place for them to go. I can't think of a better place for some wannabe "terrorists" to go than a pile of rocks in Afghanistan.

"Our enemies"? I don't think I trust you to tell me who my "enemies" are. My enemies might as well be the ones spending all that money of ours you want them to keep taking. My government doesn't make me safe. It jeopardizes my safety with these blowback policies it loves to perpetually engage in and if you're an American it jeopardizes yours too.

Liberals don't think that a million dollars matters but it does. Every dollar counts. Military spending should be cut massively and the entire federal budget would be better cut in half than slogging through the political drivel and dishonest "spending cuts" that both Democrats and Republicans keep lying to us about. There are no spending cuts, only spending increases, and the expectation of endless growth is the biggest lie our citizens have been duped into believing.

The only way we'll get a government we can afford is when we drop the rhetorical excuses for spending money and realize that every dollar counts.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Yamato

[RavenHawk]

Waltz right in where? Afghanistan? Don't care. In fact that's a lovely place for them to go. I can't think of a better place for some wannabe "terrorists" to go than a pile of rocks in Afghanistan.

Where do you get Afghanistan from? I’m talking right here in River City. Our enemies have constantly been testing our defenses. The weaker we become, the faster and easier they will find the holes. “Follow the sapper” is the saying. They are active even now. Do you have any idea who the top cyber attacks come from this very minute? In the cyber world, we are currently at war with various entities.

"Our enemies"? I don't think I trust you to tell me who my "enemies" are.

At the rate you are going, by the time you figure out who our enemies are, it’ll be too late. Right now, it appears to be Islam, but that could change. It might be Russia again or China? Or the three could join forces. Or it could be just about anyone else. It could be England for all we know. The point is that we need to be prepared for any enemy or combination. You just can’t do that on $250B a year.

My enemies might as well be the ones spending all that money of ours you want them to keep taking. My government doesn't make me safe. It jeopardizes my safety with these blowback policies it loves to perpetually engage in and if you're an American it jeopardizes yours too.

At this point I make a difference between the government and the military. Obama cannot rely on the military to support him because the military takes an oath to defend this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The military does not take an oath to Obama. Like most other militaries do to dictators. That is why he was so adamant about modifying USNORTHCOM (revoke Posse Comitatus and allow foreign troops to act against US civilians) and why he was pushing for a NCSF (Sturmabteilung gave their oath to the dictator). Or at least that is the intention. It’s the action of the American military that makes you safe. Now, I agree that what makes you unsafe is the Socialist civilian government that is attacking our liberties.

Liberals don't think that a million dollars matters but it does. Every dollar counts. Military spending should be cut massively and the entire federal budget would be better cut in half than slogging through the political drivel and dishonest "spending cuts" that both Democrats and Republicans keep lying to us about. There are no spending cuts, only spending increases, and the expectation of endless growth is the biggest lie our citizens have been duped into believing.

As a general statement, every dollar does count but in this situation, a dollar does squat. And I’m no liberal. I’m pragmatic. When you are in debt by trillions, what counts are hundreds of billions. Since we haven’t had a budget in four years, it’s difficult to know what it really is now. But the 2009 US budget was about $3.1T. The budget for defense was around $700B. The debt is $16T. So according to you, a massive cut from defense would be about $450B. So tell me, how long will it take to pay down the debt with only $450B, providing we survive being attacked? We’ll be too weak to defend ourselves.

We need to cut what this government is not charged with and return to the original intent of the Constitution. The only fair way to do that is with a proportional cut across the board. People are going to get hurt but it’s better to hurt them now a little and supplement with faith based charities, than to devastate people later. The real cliff is coming, it just depends on how we go over. If we survive then maybe we will learn that the government cannot get involved in dependency of the population.

The only way we'll get a government we can afford is when we drop the rhetorical excuses for spending money and realize that every dollar counts.

No, the only way to get a real government is to follow the advice of Mary Mathews: “You politicians have stayed professionals only because the voters have remained amateurs.” Or in other words, the people need to stop being low information voters and take an active role in our politics. Not what politicians can give us from the treasury but assuring the strength and stability of this nation and assuring the all important individual liberty.