Class War-Fair Share

satansbed

cincybearcat wrote:

satansbed wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Looks like some other disagree...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -tax-cuts/

ha i may be working for him come october/november

anyway as with anything there are politics at play and if he wasn't going to be in such a tight race in Virginia of all places he would have no problem with obama's proposal

now that is just my own personal reading of the situation and i have no inside knowledge of the situation

Here's the irony...how many of those Top 1% rely on an income?

Raise the rate all you want, you only get the people actually working for their $.

if your going to close the budget deficit everyone has to pay more those who work and are lucky enough to earn over 250K are going to have to pay at least 4% more, does who don't work are going to have to pay by cuts to social welfare and everyone is going to have to pay by cuts to local services. you CANNOT close the budget deficit with out raising revenue with out completely destroying important and necessary government services

usamamasan1

inlet13 wrote:

I'm betting people making over $250,000 don't have 9K posts on a rock band's message board.

time for people to step up and quit looking for handouts. it's those that will destroy this country if they have their way. now, back to work!

gimmesometruth27

satansbed wrote:

if your going to close the budget deficit everyone has to pay more those who work and are lucky enough to earn over 250K are going to have to pay at least 4% more, does who don't work are going to have to pay by cuts to social welfare and everyone is going to have to pay by cuts to local services. you CANNOT close the budget deficit with out raising revenue with out completely destroying important and necessary government services

i agree. you can not cut your way to prosperity. you HAVE to increase revenue. simple math dictates that.

thank you for clarifying my position for me, my more articulate, concise, and level headed friend...sometimes my temper gets the better of me and i can not make a concise point... :oops:

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

if your going to close the budget deficit everyone has to pay more those who work and are lucky enough to earn over 250K are going to have to pay at least 4% more, does who don't work are going to have to pay by cuts to social welfare and everyone is going to have to pay by cuts to local services. you CANNOT close the budget deficit with out raising revenue with out completely destroying important and necessary government services

i agree. you can not cut your way to prosperity. you HAVE to increase revenue. simple math dictates that.

thank you for clarifying my position for me, my more articulate, concise, and level headed friend...sometimes my temper gets the better of me and i can not make a concise point... :oops:

This all makes sense if accountants were running the country.

inmytree

usamamasan1 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I'm betting people making over $250,000 don't have 9K posts on a rock band's message board.

time for people to step up and quit looking for handouts. it's those that will destroy this country if they have their way. now, back to work!

hear, hear...all this pish posh from the commoners...hands outs such as roads and basic services...who do they think they are....?

regular folks and their ilk just don't understand the plight of the rich...you know...having lots of money makes things hard...you know, which aged cheese should one have...as they say, mo' money mo' problems...

how dare we even consider going back to the Clinton tax rates...how would one survive such devastating blow...my word, it's simply terrible, I say...terrible....

now back to work or leisure...tally ho....

know1

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i agree. you can not cut your way to prosperity. you HAVE to increase revenue. simple math dictates that.

What's so very ironic here is that if you pretend that your statement is talking about individual and not the government, you can see the folly of taxing people more.

know1

inmytree wrote:

hear, hear...all this pish posh from the commoners...hands outs such as roads and basic services...who do they think they are....?

regular folks and their ilk just don't understand the plight of the rich...you know...having lots of money makes things hard...you know, which aged cheese should one have...as they say, mo' money mo' problems...

how dare we even consider going back to the Clinton tax rates...how would one survive such devastating blow...my word, it's simply terrible, I say...terrible....

now back to work or leisure...tally ho....

But the big problem I see is that the government has demonstrated NO ABILITY OR INTEREST in making significant cuts or breaking the spending/deficit cycle they are in.

Sure - we could all survive another tax increase, but where does it end?

Unless something changes, the government will continue to take more and more of our freedoms and fall further and further into debt. It will likely sell all of us as slaves to China at some point.

satansbed

know1 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i agree. you can not cut your way to prosperity. you HAVE to increase revenue. simple math dictates that.

What's so very ironic here is that if you pretend that your statement is talking about individual and not the government, you can see the folly of taxing people more.

Not really if an individual is in debt and they just cut without raising their income, they have to cut far of the necessities than if they went and found a way to get extra income

if you transfer back to the government then it is better for the government to get extra income(taxes) than just cut expenditure

know1

satansbed wrote:

know1 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i agree. you can not cut your way to prosperity. you HAVE to increase revenue. simple math dictates that.

What's so very ironic here is that if you pretend that your statement is talking about individual and not the government, you can see the folly of taxing people more.

Not really if an individual is in debt and they just cut without raising their income, they have to cut far of the necessities than if they went and found a way to get extra income

if you transfer back to the government then it is better for the government to get extra income(taxes) than just cut expenditure

What I mean is that people are going to have trouble raising revenue for their own circumstances if the government insists on taxing them more and more.

inmytree

know1 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

hear, hear...all this pish posh from the commoners...hands outs such as roads and basic services...who do they think they are....?

regular folks and their ilk just don't understand the plight of the rich...you know...having lots of money makes things hard...you know, which aged cheese should one have...as they say, mo' money mo' problems...

how dare we even consider going back to the Clinton tax rates...how would one survive such devastating blow...my word, it's simply terrible, I say...terrible....

now back to work or leisure...tally ho....

But the big problem I see is that the government has demonstrated NO ABILITY OR INTEREST in making significant cuts or breaking the spending/deficit cycle they are in.

Sure - we could all survive another tax increase, but where does it end?

Unless something changes, the government will continue to take more and more of our freedoms and fall further and further into debt. It will likely sell all of us as slaves to China at some point.

I say, good man, you are fully correct...where does it end...? one must not simply understand that 2 unfunded wars and unfunded tax cuts lead us to the predicament we find ourselves this very day...

how dare the poors and commoners even suggest that we pay our bills via tax increases...even the simplest of simpletons should know the our inept government, the one that has been in place 1789, would even know how to do anything correctly...poppycock, I say...

Jason P

I'll admit, it will be very amazing if Obama can drive home the primary message that he will raise taxes to an election win.

This has to be the first time anyone has tried this, correct? :think:

satansbed

know1 wrote:

What I mean is that people are going to have trouble raising revenue for their own circumstances if the government insists on taxing them more and more.

But many are also going to have trouble raising revenue when the government cuts payments to them, and those on benefits are more likely to be in trouble than those earning 250k+

if the government debt is one of the top 3 priorities facing the U.S. Government then it is more than necessary that those who can most afford to take a hit take a hit, and nobody is asking for a massive increase

4% isn't that big

riotgrl

NPR ran a really good program just a bit ago on the program On Point called Exploited Labor in the USA here's the link if you're interested http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/07/10/forced-labor-in-the-usa

Anyway, they hit on a lot of points that many of you mentioned in this thread. We have to cut spending on alot of agencies. But why on the backs of the poor - the ones who can barely afford it? Why can't we re-implement Clintons Welfare to Work program? Bush II tore that apart as soon as he came into office and that program was one that really did help reduce welfare rolls. If you have people that are in the cycle of generational poverty then they have a much more difficult time pulling themselves "up by the bootstraps" because they often lack the needed support (for kids, they have no one at home to push them to do well at school and education should be the equalizer in our society) and they continue to live what they know - which is poverty and welfare. Why not create a system in which you gain job training or an education and after the 2-5 years it takes to gain those skills you are cut off from welfare? Then we could exempt the elderly and the disabled from those requirements and we would be able to reduce our social welfare expenditures. Seems like that would satisfy people who want to protect social programs and those who want to cut social welfare spending.

Our society "values" certain jobs over others. As a capitalistic society, we place extreme value (read: money) on those people who can help others create more wealth. This means that certain jobs aren't as "valued". If I am a firefighter or a police officer then I make less money and often benefits make up some this discrepancy. However, if I am a financial advisor or banker then I may make a great deal more money than the firefighter even though he/she is risking their life to save mine. How does that equate with working harder or putting in more effort? In some instances, this may be true but I have been both a financial advisor and a teacher and I can tell you that I work far harder as a teacher than I ever did in the financial services industry and I make far less money (which is fine, I knew that going into this, I'm just making the point that I don't make less simply because I work less or put in less effort). Maybe we should change what we value in this country.

MotoDC

satansbed wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

As far as the wealthy creating jobs, it's probably more accurate to say the successful small business person creates jobs. Many, many (if not most) of those folks are in the 250k+ bracket.

but that 250K+ isn't money they create jobs with it is the money they take out of the business.

i would like to meet a small business owner who runs a business, invests some profit back into it and still takes home 250K+

Yes, that's right...the 250k would be after capital expenditures...but are you really suggesting that, given the knowledge that the business person's take home cash is already going to be less after taxes, the business person might not be less inclined to invest more into their business and therefore in the short-to-medium term reduce their take-home even more?

satansbed

MotoDC wrote:

satansbed wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

As far as the wealthy creating jobs, it's probably more accurate to say the successful small business person creates jobs. Many, many (if not most) of those folks are in the 250k+ bracket.

but that 250K+ isn't money they create jobs with it is the money they take out of the business.

i would like to meet a small business owner who runs a business, invests some profit back into it and still takes home 250K+

Yes, that's right...the 250k would be after capital expenditures...but are you really suggesting that, given the knowledge that the business person's take home cash is already going to be less after taxes, the business person might not be less inclined to invest more into their business and therefore in the short-to-medium term reduce their take-home even more?

i don't think that would happen on as big of a scale as the republicans think it would happen, it is not just profit that drives small business owners, there is pride, wanting to achieve, and so many other factors that drive a SME owner

but basiclly what i am saying is that to most business owners, if they are making 250000 after capital expenditures the government taking 39% instead 35% will make little to no difference to them

cincybearcat

satansbed wrote:

4% isn't that big

For someone else to pay.

cincybearcat

riotgrl wrote:

But why on the backs of the poor - the ones who can barely afford it?

Now that is priceless...they don't pay anything.

satansbed

cincybearcat wrote:

satansbed wrote:

4% isn't that big

For someone else to pay.

for anyone earning 250k and over an extra 4% is not that big

having said that i would also make a cut to corporation tax

cincybearcat

Look, if Obama's proposal goes through I won't pay more in taxes, at least not today. They haven't proven they can spend the $ they have wisely, why give them more?

Tax increases along with significant cuts (and yes, military included and a big part) I could entertain. Bt personally, I want to see cuts for 1 year before giving them any more $.

Jason P

satansbed wrote:

for anyone earning 250k and over an extra 4% is not that big

That's $10,000 if you are at the threshold.