Just like the Pied Piper

gimmesometruth27

Led rats through the streets
they dance like marionettes
swaying to the symphony

of destruction...

Reid says anti-tax activist leads GOP like puppets

http://news.yahoo.com/reid-says-anti-ta ... 50671.html

..WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Republicans are being led like puppets by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, dimming prospects for a compromise in Congress' so-called supercommittee.

Reid made his remarks as the panel heard from veterans of other deficit-cutting groups that wound up recommending higher taxes. The committee has until Nov. 23 to recommend legislation to reduce federal deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

Republicans and Democrats on the supercommittee exchanged proposals last week that show they remain far apart despite weeks of private meetings.

Democrats have been critical of the GOP proposal, noting it contained none of the higher taxes that they and President Barack Obama have demanded as a pre-condition for changes in benefit programs such as Medicare.

..


really? does grover norquist really hold all of the cards in this discussion? the man is not even an elected official and he holds this much influence over the gop?

pretty sad actually...

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Led rats through the streets
they dance like marionettes
swaying to the symphony

of destruction...

Reid says anti-tax activist leads GOP like puppets

http://news.yahoo.com/reid-says-anti-ta ... 50671.html

..WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Republicans are being led like puppets by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, dimming prospects for a compromise in Congress' so-called supercommittee.

Reid made his remarks as the panel heard from veterans of other deficit-cutting groups that wound up recommending higher taxes. The committee has until Nov. 23 to recommend legislation to reduce federal deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

Republicans and Democrats on the supercommittee exchanged proposals last week that show they remain far apart despite weeks of private meetings.

Democrats have been critical of the GOP proposal, noting it contained none of the higher taxes that they and President Barack Obama have demanded as a pre-condition for changes in benefit programs such as Medicare.

..


really? does grover norquist really hold all of the cards in this discussion? the man is not even an elected official and he holds this much influence over the gop?

pretty sad actually...

why is it that when people don't agree the other side is a puppet...can't it be that they simply don't think raising taxes is the answer?
seems like a pattern for reid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYUiwAq248I

but this certainly speaks to a larger problem, special non-elected officials have far too much influence and accessibility of our politicians.

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Led rats through the streets
they dance like marionettes
swaying to the symphony

of destruction...

Reid says anti-tax activist leads GOP like puppets

http://news.yahoo.com/reid-says-anti-ta ... 50671.html

..WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Republicans are being led like puppets by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, dimming prospects for a compromise in Congress' so-called supercommittee.

Reid made his remarks as the panel heard from veterans of other deficit-cutting groups that wound up recommending higher taxes. The committee has until Nov. 23 to recommend legislation to reduce federal deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

Republicans and Democrats on the supercommittee exchanged proposals last week that show they remain far apart despite weeks of private meetings.

Democrats have been critical of the GOP proposal, noting it contained none of the higher taxes that they and President Barack Obama have demanded as a pre-condition for changes in benefit programs such as Medicare.

..


really? does grover norquist really hold all of the cards in this discussion? the man is not even an elected official and he holds this much influence over the gop?

pretty sad actually...

why is it that when people don't agree the other side is a puppet...can't it be that they simply don't think raising taxes is the answer?
seems like a pattern for reid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYUiwAq248I

but this certainly speaks to a larger problem, special non-elected officials have far too much influence and accessibility of our politicians.

how else would you describe norquist's hold on the gop other than he is controlling them like puppets? he has made all of them sign a pledge to not raise taxes.

Monster Rain

He made them sign it or he asked them to sign it? I doubt he pulled a gun on anyone. It's not exactly a new stance for Republicans to oppose tax increases. It's one of the main differences between the parties, really.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Led rats through the streets
they dance like marionettes
swaying to the symphony

of destruction...

Reid says anti-tax activist leads GOP like puppets

http://news.yahoo.com/reid-says-anti-ta ... 50671.html

..WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Republicans are being led like puppets by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, dimming prospects for a compromise in Congress' so-called supercommittee.

Reid made his remarks as the panel heard from veterans of other deficit-cutting groups that wound up recommending higher taxes. The committee has until Nov. 23 to recommend legislation to reduce federal deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

Republicans and Democrats on the supercommittee exchanged proposals last week that show they remain far apart despite weeks of private meetings.

Democrats have been critical of the GOP proposal, noting it contained none of the higher taxes that they and President Barack Obama have demanded as a pre-condition for changes in benefit programs such as Medicare.

..


really? does grover norquist really hold all of the cards in this discussion? the man is not even an elected official and he holds this much influence over the gop?

pretty sad actually...

why is it that when people don't agree the other side is a puppet...can't it be that they simply don't think raising taxes is the answer?
seems like a pattern for reid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYUiwAq248I

but this certainly speaks to a larger problem, special non-elected officials have far too much influence and accessibility of our politicians.

how else would you describe norquist's hold on the gop other than he is controlling them like puppets? he has made all of them sign a pledge to not raise taxes.

satansbed

Monster Rain wrote:

He made them sign it or he asked them to sign it? I doubt he pulled a gun on anyone. It's not exactly a new stance for Republicans to oppose tax increases. It's one of the main differences between the parties, really.

well he basicly put a political gun to there heads by saying he would oppose any of them that didn't sign it and he has the power to do that

cincybearcat

And look who is harry reid's puppet apparently, taking what he says as gospel.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

And look who is harry reid's puppet apparently, taking what he says as gospel.

i don't need harry reid to state the obvious for me. google "grover norquist tax pledge" and what you find there among all of those links will back up what reid is saying.

Monster Rain

Yes, anyone has the power to oppose a politician they don't agree with. You guys are acting as though Republicans really really really want to raise taxes but this mean man just won't let them. As I said earlier, one of the big meaningful differences between the Republicans and Democrats has been taxes/spending. This pledge has been around for over 20 years and many Republicans have been elected and re-elected without signing it.

satansbed wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

He made them sign it or he asked them to sign it? I doubt he pulled a gun on anyone. It's not exactly a new stance for Republicans to oppose tax increases. It's one of the main differences between the parties, really.

well he basicly put a political gun to there heads by saying he would oppose any of them that didn't sign it and he has the power to do that

gimmesometruth27

Monster Rain wrote:

Yes, anyone has the power to oppose a politician they don't agree with. You guys are acting as though Republicans really really really want to raise taxes but this mean man just won't let them. As I said earlier, one of the big meaningful differences between the Republicans and Democrats has been taxes/spending. This pledge has been around for over 20 years and many Republicans have been elected and re-elected without signing it.

satansbed wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

He made them sign it or he asked them to sign it? I doubt he pulled a gun on anyone. It's not exactly a new stance for Republicans to oppose tax increases. It's one of the main differences between the parties, really.

well he basicly put a political gun to there heads by saying he would oppose any of them that didn't sign it and he has the power to do that

only one in the senate, (or is it the house?) has not signed it.

has anyone seen the polls this week? the republicans' proposal for the budget without tax increases on the rich is getting more and more unpopular...

mikepegg44

Monster Rain wrote:

Yes, anyone has the power to oppose a politician they don't agree with. You guys are acting as though Republicans really really really want to raise taxes but this mean man just won't let them. As I said earlier, one of the big meaningful differences between the Republicans and Democrats has been taxes/spending. This pledge has been around for over 20 years and many Republicans have been elected and re-elected without signing it.

satansbed wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

He made them sign it or he asked them to sign it? I doubt he pulled a gun on anyone. It's not exactly a new stance for Republicans to oppose tax increases. It's one of the main differences between the parties, really.

well he basicly put a political gun to there heads by saying he would oppose any of them that didn't sign it and he has the power to do that

exactly.

People who cannot understand why someone would vote republican, be a republican, or oppose the democrats seem to think that they are all being controlled...whether it is Norquist, Koch brothers, who ever the flavor of the day is that is controlling the party...

People in congress don't want to raise taxes...whether it is for the right reason (won't solve any problems) or for the wrong one (simply to get re-elected)....it is how it is. Puppets...it is as overused as hypocrisy...How can a party who overtly says it is against raising taxes be said to be controlled by one person...it is just an easy way to blame someone for something they don't understand. Reid just cannot understand why the republicans won't raise taxes and so it has to be some sort of insidious outside influence.

If this is the case, then all politicians are puppets in one form or another...

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

only one in the senate, (or is it the house?) has not signed it.

has anyone seen the polls this week? the republicans' proposal for the budget without tax increases on the rich is getting more and more unpopular...

when has pushing unpopular legislation ever been a problem? it happens all the time...I can think of a healthcare bill that passed that continues to decline in approval...I don't want my government making decisions based on the whims of the masses...we elect these people to make decisions on their own, if public support was necessary for ever single thing that is ever done why do we even have representatives...shouldn't we just have referendums on everything?

They are representatives because we need people to make hard decisions...Poll watching is for politicians who only care about being re-elected...hard decisions (whatever side they agree with mind you, this isn't a democrat republican thing) are for those that are doing their duty and serving their constituents to the best of their ability. It truly is a parent/child relationship.

satansbed

Monster Rain wrote:

Yes, anyone has the power to oppose a politician they don't agree with. You guys are acting as though Republicans really really really want to raise taxes but this mean man just won't let them. As I said earlier, one of the big meaningful differences between the Republicans and Democrats has been taxes/spending. This pledge has been around for over 20 years and many Republicans have been elected and re-elected without signing it.

satansbed wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

He made them sign it or he asked them to sign it? I doubt he pulled a gun on anyone. It's not exactly a new stance for Republicans to oppose tax increases. It's one of the main differences between the parties, really.

well he basicly put a political gun to there heads by saying he would oppose any of them that didn't sign it and he has the power to do that

Norquist's opposition to any and all tax increases implies that even deficit reduction agreements that are dominated by spending cuts should be rejected since such agreements are still not entirely spending cuts, he is an obstacle to deficit reduction and if republicans are serious about reducing the deficit they are going to have to increase taxes slightly, close loopholes. yes it should be dominated by spending cuts but there will need to be some tax increases. his power over these republicans means that they won't though, just prolonging the lack of confidence in the economy and discouraging investment

Monster Rain

I'm not sure what polls you've read. According to a Quinnipiac University poll released today, 48% favor a deficit reduction plan that only cuts spending and just 39% said the plan should have a tax increase. It seems like a plan that includes a tax increase is the less popular option.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67513.html

Also, I didn't mean that many people in Congress today have been elected and re-eleceted without signing the bill. I was saying that many people over the last 20+ years that the ATR has had the pledge have been elected and re-elected without needing to sign it. Not signing it doesn't mean that someone will turn around a vote to raise taxes. I view that pledge as a formality. The first George Bush signed the pledge in '88 and signed off on a tax increase 2 years later. Republicans still gave him the party's nomination in '92 and when he lost it was because he had given that "Read my lips: No new taxes" speech, not because he signed some silly paper that has no legal standing. If he'd never given that speech, people wouldn't have known he signed that pledge (or at the very least, not nearly as many people would have known).

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Yes, anyone has the power to oppose a politician they don't agree with. You guys are acting as though Republicans really really really want to raise taxes but this mean man just won't let them. As I said earlier, one of the big meaningful differences between the Republicans and Democrats has been taxes/spending. This pledge has been around for over 20 years and many Republicans have been elected and re-elected without signing it.

only one in the senate, (or is it the house?) has not signed it.

has anyone seen the polls this week? the republicans' proposal for the budget without tax increases on the rich is getting more and more unpopular...

gimmesometruth27

satansbed wrote:

Norquist's opposition to any and all tax increases implies that even deficit reduction agreements that are dominated by spending cuts should be rejected since such agreements are still not entirely spending cuts, he is an obstacle to deficit reduction and if republicans are serious about reducing the deficit they are going to have to increase taxes slightly, close loopholes. yes it should be dominated by spending cuts but there will need to be some tax increases. his power over these republicans means that they won't though, just prolonging the lack of confidence in the economy and discouraging investment

stated much better than i could have put it.

americans favor a balanced approach ot spending cuts and increasing revenue via tax increases on the rich and closing the corporate tax loopholes.

this is not a time for selfishness for no other reason than scoring political points.

at this point, i think the gop is going to "stubborn" their way out of controlling the house...

Monster Rain

You make it seem as though Republicans want to raise taxes but are being prevented from doing so because one guy doesn't want them to. That's absurd. Every Republican runs for office promising not to vote for tax increases. I don't want them to come up with a plan that includes any tax increases and I've never met the guy before. Tax increases are not needed. Less spending is what's needed. The reason I say that is simple: raising taxes has never led to decreased spending by the government. A tax increase will only mean that the budget for something won't be cut or decreased by as much as it would have been without the tax increase.

satansbed wrote:

Norquist's opposition to any and all tax increases implies that even deficit reduction agreements that are dominated by spending cuts should be rejected since such agreements are still not entirely spending cuts, he is an obstacle to deficit reduction and if republicans are serious about reducing the deficit they are going to have to increase taxes slightly, close loopholes. yes it should be dominated by spending cuts but there will need to be some tax increases. his power over these republicans means that they won't though, just prolonging the lack of confidence in the economy and discouraging investment

dignin

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

Norquist's opposition to any and all tax increases implies that even deficit reduction agreements that are dominated by spending cuts should be rejected since such agreements are still not entirely spending cuts, he is an obstacle to deficit reduction and if republicans are serious about reducing the deficit they are going to have to increase taxes slightly, close loopholes. yes it should be dominated by spending cuts but there will need to be some tax increases. his power over these republicans means that they won't though, just prolonging the lack of confidence in the economy and discouraging investment

stated much better than i could have put it.

americans favor a balanced approach ot spending cuts and increasing revenue via tax increases on the rich and closing the corporate tax loopholes.

this is not a time for selfishness for no other reason than scoring political points.

at this point, i think the gop is going to "stubborn" their way out of controlling the house...

It's called compromise, this is how civil societies get along. The Republicans are ignoring over half the electorate by saying they will not agree to any tax hikes.....the answer, right or wrong is somewhere in the middle. This is how a democracy works.

Monster Rain

What you said here is simply not true. More people support a plan with only spending cuts than support a plan that includes a tax increase for the rich. My other post showed you the poll that came out today. I tried to find a poll that supports your statements in this thread but I didn't see any. If you have one, I'd like to see it so I can see how if compares to the one I posted.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

stated much better than i could have put it.

americans favor a balanced approach ot spending cuts and increasing revenue via tax increases on the rich and closing the corporate tax loopholes.

this is not a time for selfishness for no other reason than scoring political points.

at this point, i think the gop is going to "stubborn" their way out of controlling the house...

bennett13

Monster Rain wrote:

Yes, anyone has the power to oppose a politician they don't agree with. You guys are acting as though Republicans really really really want to raise taxes but this mean man just won't let them. As I said earlier, one of the big meaningful differences between the Republicans and Democrats has been taxes/spending. This pledge has been around for over 20 years and many Republicans have been elected and re-elected without signing it.

satansbed wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

He made them sign it or he asked them to sign it? I doubt he pulled a gun on anyone. It's not exactly a new stance for Republicans to oppose tax increases. It's one of the main differences between the parties, really.

well he basicly put a political gun to there heads by saying he would oppose any of them that didn't sign it and he has the power to do that

only one in the senate, (or is it the house?) has not signed it.

has anyone seen the polls this week? the republicans' proposal for the budget without tax increases on the rich is getting more and more unpopular...[/quote]


I've always been skeptical of polls. It's probably because I have never been polled, nor do I know anyone who has ever been polled. Who exactly are they polling?

bennett13

I obviously need a lesson in the quote feature on these boards...I never seem to get them right. :oops:

markin ball

Monster Rain wrote:

Yes, anyone has the power to oppose a politician they don't agree with. You guys are acting as though Republicans really really really want to raise taxes but this mean man just won't let them. As I said earlier, one of the big meaningful differences between the Republicans and Democrats has been taxes/spending. This pledge has been around for over 20 years and many Republicans have been elected and re-elected without signing it.

satansbed wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

He made them sign it or he asked them to sign it? I doubt he pulled a gun on anyone. It's not exactly a new stance for Republicans to oppose tax increases. It's one of the main differences between the parties, really.

well he basicly put a political gun to there heads by saying he would oppose any of them that didn't sign it and he has the power to do that

I think that is just a myth that has been ingrained in the popular psyche. Regan raised taxes and the deficit a lot. Bush 2 raised the deficit a lot. Both parties seem to spend with reckless abandon.

mikepegg44

markin ball wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Yes, anyone has the power to oppose a politician they don't agree with. You guys are acting as though Republicans really really really want to raise taxes but this mean man just won't let them. As I said earlier, one of the big meaningful differences between the Republicans and Democrats has been taxes/spending. This pledge has been around for over 20 years and many Republicans have been elected and re-elected without signing it.

satansbed wrote:

well he basicly put a political gun to there heads by saying he would oppose any of them that didn't sign it and he has the power to do that

I think that is just a myth that has been ingrained in the popular psyche. Regan raised taxes and the deficit a lot. Bush 2 raised the deficit a lot. Both parties seem to spend with reckless abandon.

correct, both parties have spent like MC hammer...

but traditionally Republicans have been in favor of lower tax rates than Democrats. Raising taxes here is like taking a morbidly obese person to the Old Country Buffet. Does anyone think we can solve a weight problem by eating more? then why on earth do they think we can solve our government's tendency to spend themselves in trouble by giving them more money?

if they can prove they can spend less and balance a budget, they can have more to spend...and just so everyone knows....you can raise revenue without raising tax rates.

Monster Rain

You're correct that both parties like to spend money. Bush 2 definitely spent more money than I was comfortable with. It just seems that Democrats tend to want to spend more and throw more money at a problem that hasn't been fixed by throwing money at it before. For example, Obama has already spent nearly $900 billion on jobs acts that didn't work. Now he wants to spend more and wants to raise taxes on people making voer $1,000,000 in order to pay for it. On top of that, he wants to raise taxes as part of his plan to cut the deficit, too. On one hand, he's telling a 12-member panel to cut a trillion dollars from out deficit and on the other he's asking to spend almost half that amount for his 3rd attempt at creating jobs (a large portion of which would be temporary jobs, too). Well, how can I believe that he's not going to raise my taxes, too? He's telling Congress to reduce spending while he's increasing spending and he wants tax increases to accomplish all this. Well, at some point he won't be able to raise taxes on the rich any higher and then who will he turn to? He's never realy explained why the deficit can't be cut by cutting spending without a tax increase other than to say, "It's just math." Well, I can think of plenty of ways to cut spending by a large amount without raising taxes. Some of those ways might make other countries a little upset because I'd suggest reducing or eliminating our foreign aid (especially when those countries receiving our aid say that we owe them money and our aid isn't paying down that debt for some odd reason) on a case-by-case basis. We give a ton of money away to other countries every year when we have better uses for it here. I'd love to be able to help out every other country that needs it, but we have a need for it here and that should be the priority every year when the budget is passed.

markin ball wrote:

I think that is just a myth that has been ingrained in the popular psyche. Regan raised taxes and the deficit a lot. Bush 2 raised the deficit a lot. Both parties seem to spend with reckless abandon.

satansbed

Monster Rain wrote:

You're correct that both parties like to spend money. Bush 2 definitely spent more money than I was comfortable with. It just seems that Democrats tend to want to spend more and throw more money at a problem that hasn't been fixed by throwing money at it before. For example, Obama has already spent nearly $900 billion on jobs acts that didn't work. Now he wants to spend more and wants to raise taxes on people making voer $1,000,000 in order to pay for it. On top of that, he wants to raise taxes as part of his plan to cut the deficit, too. On one hand, he's telling a 12-member panel to cut a trillion dollars from out deficit and on the other he's asking to spend almost half that amount for his 3rd attempt at creating jobs (a large portion of which would be temporary jobs, too). Well, how can I believe that he's not going to raise my taxes, too? He's telling Congress to reduce spending while he's increasing spending and he wants tax increases to accomplish all this. Well, at some point he won't be able to raise taxes on the rich any higher and then who will he turn to? He's never realy explained why the deficit can't be cut by cutting spending without a tax increase other than to say, "It's just math." Well, I can think of plenty of ways to cut spending by a large amount without raising taxes. Some of those ways might make other countries a little upset because I'd suggest reducing or eliminating our foreign aid (especially when those countries receiving our aid say that we owe them money and our aid isn't paying down that debt for some odd reason) on a case-by-case basis. We give a ton of money away to other countries every year when we have better uses for it here. I'd love to be able to help out every other country that needs it, but we have a need for it here and that should be the priority every year when the budget is passed.

markin ball wrote:

I think that is just a myth that has been ingrained in the popular psyche. Regan raised taxes and the deficit a lot. Bush 2 raised the deficit a lot. Both parties seem to spend with reckless abandon.

us foreign aid is approx 50 billion, that includes military aid, even if you cut all of that it would barely be a drop in the ocean

and i would like to add that foreign aid isn't just about making us feel warm and fuzzy it also has a massive effect on world security

Monster Rain

And how much extra money would we take in through a tax increase on the rich? One article I read estimates a tax increase on those making over $1,000,000,000 would increase revenue by $45-$50 billion per year. So if saving $50 billion per year by cutting foreign aid isn't much, then raising taxes doesn't seem like much help, either. And if that gain results in less consumer spending from that group, what becomes of the workers at the stores who have their hours cut or are laid off due to lower sales? Their income goes down, which means they are paying in less in taxes, which means that the revenue increase from the tax increase is now less than the estimated $45-$50 billion per year.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/08/15/ ... h-revenue/

satansbed wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

You're correct that both parties like to spend money. Bush 2 definitely spent more money than I was comfortable with. It just seems that Democrats tend to want to spend more and throw more money at a problem that hasn't been fixed by throwing money at it before. For example, Obama has already spent nearly $900 billion on jobs acts that didn't work. Now he wants to spend more and wants to raise taxes on people making voer $1,000,000 in order to pay for it. On top of that, he wants to raise taxes as part of his plan to cut the deficit, too. On one hand, he's telling a 12-member panel to cut a trillion dollars from out deficit and on the other he's asking to spend almost half that amount for his 3rd attempt at creating jobs (a large portion of which would be temporary jobs, too). Well, how can I believe that he's not going to raise my taxes, too? He's telling Congress to reduce spending while he's increasing spending and he wants tax increases to accomplish all this. Well, at some point he won't be able to raise taxes on the rich any higher and then who will he turn to? He's never realy explained why the deficit can't be cut by cutting spending without a tax increase other than to say, "It's just math." Well, I can think of plenty of ways to cut spending by a large amount without raising taxes. Some of those ways might make other countries a little upset because I'd suggest reducing or eliminating our foreign aid (especially when those countries receiving our aid say that we owe them money and our aid isn't paying down that debt for some odd reason) on a case-by-case basis. We give a ton of money away to other countries every year when we have better uses for it here. I'd love to be able to help out every other country that needs it, but we have a need for it here and that should be the priority every year when the budget is passed.

markin ball wrote:

I think that is just a myth that has been ingrained in the popular psyche. Regan raised taxes and the deficit a lot. Bush 2 raised the deficit a lot. Both parties seem to spend with reckless abandon.

us foreign aid is approx 50 billion, that includes military aid, even if you cut all of that it would barely be a drop in the ocean

mikepegg44

Monster Rain wrote:

And how much extra money would we take in through a tax increase on the rich?

if we doubled income tax we would still run a deficit. Plus, an increase in rates doesn't not always mean a directly measured increase in revenue anyway.

Jason P

mikepegg44 wrote:

if we doubled income tax we would still run a deficit. Plus, an increase in rates doesn't not always mean a directly measured increase in revenue anyway.

Yeah, well, at least those elitist pigs will be paying their fair share, dag-gummit!

Which brings along another point ... if / when taxes are raised, is everyone cool??? The 1% will be paying their fair share and Obama will have his revenue.

Problem solved????

If the answer is "NO", perhaps there are other issues more pertinent to address in solving our countries issues. If it's "YES", then activity on this board should drop significantly.

satansbed

mikepegg44 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

And how much extra money would we take in through a tax increase on the rich?

if we doubled income tax we would still run a deficit. Plus, an increase in rates doesn't not always mean a directly measured increase in revenue anyway.

there is more than income taxes though, there are also financial transaction taxes that are worth looking at and closing more tax loopholes.

Monster Rain

And what types of financial transactions are you suggesting be taxed or taxed at a higher rate?

satansbed wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

And how much extra money would we take in through a tax increase on the rich?

if we doubled income tax we would still run a deficit. Plus, an increase in rates doesn't not always mean a directly measured increase in revenue anyway.

there is more than income taxes though, there are also financial transaction taxes that are worth looking at and closing more tax loopholes.

satansbed

something like a financial transaction tax levied at 0.1 per cent on stocks and bond trades, and 0.01 per cent on derivatives which was proposed by the eu commision

Monster Rain

We already pay taxes on earnings from the sale of stocks, bonds, etc. and we are taxed on dividend income as well--and they're taxed at a higher rate than you suggested we impose. Also, increasing the tax rate on those things would not only raise taxes on the rich, which is was Obama and the Democrats are trying to tell us are the only ones they want to get a tax increase. Many middle-class and lower-class people trade stocks and receive dividends. The elderly would certainly be impacted by this as a good deal of them have stocks that pay dividends quarterly and they hold on to those stocks solely for the income. Until recently, I worked as a bank teller and I was in an area with several retirement communities. There were dozens of elderly customers who would bring in stacks of dividend checks every quarter and deposit them into their accounts. I myself am nowhere near rich and I have an online stock brokerage account and would definitely not want to see my dividends or profit from the eventual sale of my stocks suddenly be taxed at a higher rate.

satansbed wrote:

something like a financial transaction tax levied at 0.1 per cent on stocks and bond trades, and 0.01 per cent on derivatives which was proposed by the eu commision

mikepegg44

satansbed wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

And how much extra money would we take in through a tax increase on the rich?

if we doubled income tax we would still run a deficit. Plus, an increase in rates doesn't not always mean a directly measured increase in revenue anyway.

there is more than income taxes though, there are also financial transaction taxes that are worth looking at and closing more tax loopholes.

I realize that, but everyone talks about clinton era tax rates and blah blah blah...closing loopholes is a great first start, but that can affect everyone, not just the rich remember... Luxury taxes have proven to crush particular industries...see the boat market in delaware I believe it was tried there...killed the market...
taxing financial transactions more than the amount they are now would probably have the same affect as raising rates on the rich...short term possibly a little more revenue, long term probably a slow down in financial transactions and the money moving somewhere else to invest. Capital gains tax rates show that you can grow revenue by lowering rates as well as shrink revenue with raising rates. Now that isn't to say that will happen for sure, The incentive to invest becomes less when you are taxed more for doing it..if I have a pile of money and invest it, the risk I took could have been large, I make a little money on the sale of the stock after taking the risk and am taxed on it, eventually it isn't worth taking the risk. 1 percent doesn't seem like a lot of an increase, but over time and for active traders and investors it becomes a lot of money...and I can promise you if it is a success that rate will rise in the future.