‘They Don’t Deserve It’

Boxes&Books

Former Reagan Budget Director Says Wall St. Doesn’t Need Another Tax Cut: ‘They Don’t Deserve It’

This morning on ABC’s This Week, host Christiane Amanpour asked Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) whether he considers it “fair” that the richest Americans should get an extra tax cut. “What’s not fair,” Pence responded in defense of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, “is that you would actually allow a tax increase on job creators.” Former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman, who ushered in one of the most sweeping tax cuts in history, rejected Pence’s argument:

Two years after the crisis on Wall Street, it has been announced that bonuses this year will be $144 billion — the highest in history. That’s who’s gonna get this tax cut on the top, you know, 2 percent of the population. They don’t need a tax cut. They don’t deserve it. And therefore, what we have to do is focus on Main Street.

Godfather.

tonifig8 wrote:

Former Reagan Budget Director Says Wall St. Doesn’t Need Another Tax Cut: ‘They Don’t Deserve It’

This morning on ABC’s This Week, host Christiane Amanpour asked Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) whether he considers it “fair” that the richest Americans should get an extra tax cut. “What’s not fair,” Pence responded in defense of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, “is that you would actually allow a tax increase on job creators.” Former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman, who ushered in one of the most sweeping tax cuts in history, rejected Pence’s argument:

Two years after the crisis on Wall Street, it has been announced that bonuses this year will be $144 billion — the highest in history. That’s who’s gonna get this tax cut on the top, you know, 2 percent of the population. They don’t need a tax cut. They don’t deserve it. And therefore, what we have to do is focus on Main Street.

I'm thinking that I agree with him,what do you think ?

Godfather.

Boxes&Books

Godfather. wrote:

I'm thinking that I agree with him,what do you think ?

Godfather.

So this means that they should NOT extend the Bush tax cuts for individuals making more then 250,000.

I agree.

Godfather.

tonifig8 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

I'm thinking that I agree with him,what do you think ?

Godfather.

So this means that they should NOT extend the Bush tax cuts for individuals making more then 250,000.

I agree.

I think tax cuts should be even across the board it's just not right to give some and not the others a break.

Godfather.

dcfaithful

Godfather. wrote:

I think tax cuts should be even across the board it's just not right to give some and not the others a break.

Godfather.

I totally agree. If you're going to cut taxes, it should apply to everyone.

markin ball

dcfaithful wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

I think tax cuts should be even across the board it's just not right to give some and not the others a break.

Godfather.

I totally agree. If you're going to cut taxes, it should apply to everyone.

Do you guys have any thoughts on why we have a staggered tax system?

cincybearcat

tonifig8 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

I'm thinking that I agree with him,what do you think ?

Godfather.

So this means that they should NOT extend the Bush tax cuts for individuals making more then 250,000.

I agree.

I don't think that $250,000 is the right number, should be higher.

Godfather.

markin ball wrote:

dcfaithful wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

I think tax cuts should be even across the board it's just not right to give some and not the others a break.

Godfather.

I totally agree. If you're going to cut taxes, it should apply to everyone.

Do you guys have any thoughts on why we have a staggered tax system?

no as a matter of fact, I have always thought there should a flat tax same for everybody.

Godfather.

unsung

How many of you are employed by poor people or companies that don't make money (profit)?

gimmesometruth27

unsung wrote:

How many of you are employed by poor people or companies that don't make money (profit)?

if the rich create the jobs, why is the unemployment rate still near 9% with all of the tax cuts they have received? stating that the rich create the jobs is quite a stretch, becaue they have not been doing it the last few years, even with the same tax cuts.

cajunkiwi

Some interesting statistics from a recent New York Times article about the income imbalance in America:

1% of the population takes home 24% of the money.

In 1980, CEOs earned, on average, 42x what the average worker did. In 2010, CEOs earn, on average, 531x as much as the average worker.

80% of the total increase income has gone to the top 1%.

The distribution of wealth in America is now more uneven than in so-called "banana republics" like Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Guyana.

Electric_Delta

The Goldman-Sachs of the world need not serve as the standard-bearers of the free-market system. As Commy would say, they are "militant capitalists" (though in their case, I suspect alot more is going on than we will ever know).

This having been said, it's not in our best interest to continue penalizing those who are responsible for creating over HALF the jobs in our nation. Maybe they could create more jobs if there were more certainty.

It's hard to create certainty when the government is responsible for devaluing our currency and sinking us in debt.

gimmesometruth27

cajunkiwi wrote:

Some interesting statistics from a recent New York Times article about the income imbalance in America:

1% of the population takes home 24% of the money.

In 1980, CEOs earned, on average, 42x what the average worker did. In 2010, CEOs earn, on average, 531x as much as the average worker.

80% of the total increase income has gone to the top 1%.

The distribution of wealth in America is now more uneven than in so-called "banana republics" like Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Guyana.

i saw this yesterday. the robber barons are alive and well and living in america.

unsung

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

unsung wrote:

How many of you are employed by poor people or companies that don't make money (profit)?

if the rich create the jobs, why is the unemployment rate still near 9% with all of the tax cuts they have received? stating that the rich create the jobs is quite a stretch, becaue they have not been doing it the last few years, even with the same tax cuts.

Unless you had some sort of war contract government policies the last ten years or so have not been business friendly. It took years to get here, it can't get fixed overnight.

The Fed just announced another $600M plan, where is this money coming from? It is a failed policy that we are going to pay for in the future.

I am 100% for auditing the Fed as Ron Paul is trying to get done. If people aren't behind that concept of accountability I would have to question whether they wanted this economy to turn around.

unsung

I meant $600B. Where is the money coming from? Why is there not more anger? Wake up people!

Commy

cajunkiwi wrote:

Some interesting statistics from a recent New York Times article about the income imbalance in America:

1% of the population takes home 24% of the money.

In 1980, CEOs earned, on average, 42x what the average worker did. In 2010, CEOs earn, on average, 531x as much as the average worker.

80% of the total increase income has gone to the top 1%.

The distribution of wealth in America is now more uneven than in so-called "banana republics" like Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Guyana.

this while wages have remained largely stagnant for the working class for 30 years.


sure, the rich need a tax break. better extend the cuts. :roll:

ONCE DEVIDED

unsung wrote:

I meant $600B. Where is the money coming from? Why is there not more anger? Wake up people!

aint they printing more??
first time in my life the Mighty USD has come down to parity with the aussie dollar. Not because we are doing well, up against the Euro its same old same old. No real change
its becasue the US dollar is sliding down the drain

unsung

Yes it is. There is no longer a gold standard, if they need money they just print it!

cajunkiwi

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

unsung wrote:

How many of you are employed by poor people or companies that don't make money (profit)?

if the rich create the jobs, why is the unemployment rate still near 9% with all of the tax cuts they have received? stating that the rich create the jobs is quite a stretch, becaue they have not been doing it the last few years, even with the same tax cuts.

Unless you had some sort of war contract government policies the last ten years or so have not been business friendly. It took years to get here, it can't get fixed overnight.

The Fed just announced another $600M plan, where is this money coming from? It is a failed policy that we are going to pay for in the future.

I am 100% for auditing the Fed as Ron Paul is trying to get done. If people aren't behind that concept of accountability I would have to question whether they wanted this economy to turn around.

I don't see anything wrong with auditing the Fed. I think if you hold the checkbook you should be able to account for the money.

Electric_Delta

Unless you had some sort of war contract government policies the last ten years or so have not been business friendly. It took years to get here, it can't get fixed overnight.

The Fed just announced another $600M plan, where is this money coming from? It is a failed policy that we are going to pay for in the future.

I am 100% for auditing the Fed as Ron Paul is trying to get done. If people aren't behind that concept of accountability I would have to question whether they wanted this economy to turn around.[/quote]

I don't see anything wrong with auditing the Fed. I think if you hold the checkbook you should be able to account for the money.[/quote]


I agree totally.

Flagg

cajunkiwi wrote:

Some interesting statistics from a recent New York Times article about the income imbalance in America:

1% of the population takes home 24% of the money.

In 1980, CEOs earned, on average, 42x what the average worker did. In 2010, CEOs earn, on average, 531x as much as the average worker.

80% of the total increase income has gone to the top 1%.

The distribution of wealth in America is now more uneven than in so-called "banana republics" like Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Guyana.

Yeah, I don't understand why so many people get up in arms to defend a class of people of which they will never be a part. We do way to much idolizing the rich in this country. Everyone gets all upset when Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for all but the rich, but how many of those people are rich? Why do they defend the rich?

Because of the fact that so few own so much, the graduated tax structure is in place. If you went with the flat tax for all, you would tax the poor more than the rich. Think about it. Say, 10%. If you take 10% from a guy worth $20,000,000 that is one less yacht or vacation home. But if you take it from the guy trying to feed his family and living at somewhere around the poverty line, 10% is devastating.

If you go with a flat tax you would have to exempt a ton of people, like they do know, so where is the line?

Jason P

Flagg wrote:

Yeah, I don't understand why so many people get up in arms to defend a class of people of which they will never be a part.

Devil's Advocate . . . Do you care about the bottom 2%?

Jason P

Flagg wrote:

Because of the fact that so few own so much, the graduated tax structure is in place. If you went with the flat tax for all, you would tax the poor more than the rich. Think about it. Say, 10%. If you take 10% from a guy worth $20,000,000 that is one less yacht or vacation home. But if you take it from the guy trying to feed his family and living at somewhere around the poverty line, 10% is devastating.

If you go with a flat tax you would have to exempt a ton of people, like they do know, so where is the line?

What about taking 10% from a couple making a combined $250K a year that lives in New York City?

Flagg

Jason P wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Yeah, I don't understand why so many people get up in arms to defend a class of people of which they will never be a part.

Devil's Advocate . . . Do you care about the bottom 2%?

Yes, even though I am not part of that group. That's a little different though.