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 $.
but to get the cuts, the republicans have to agree to tax increases, thats why there hasn't been enough cuts yet, congress can't agree to a budget, mainly because the republicans don't want to upset their friends
thanks for the condescending assessment of my situation, but you don't fucking know me.
It wasn't condescending. Or at least it wasn't meant that way. I was sincerely saying to you that if you're so begrudged that the wealthy don't pay their share, you might want to show them how it's done.
i work in a physican's office about 50 hours a week and i have a lot of time to post here between patients. i drive 50 minutes each way, i have a good salary but not great, as i can afford to do most of whatever i want to do and have some nice things.
That’s awesome. Thanks for telling us. Anyways, you are the one who brought your income and now your job in to this, I did not.
you are here just as much as i am per day, because you are always online when i am, so there goes your theory about time wasted.....
Not sure that’s true or not. But, I am not someone who's saying how much I make nor am I saying that other people need to pay more as a percentage than I do. I am not asking for handouts. I am happy with my standing and if I wasn’t I would work on changing it.
fact is, i live alone, own my own house, have 2 cars, one nice luxury daily driver, one specifically for my band, and i don't need armchair economists like yourself, who do not know what i do for a living, telling me how i could better utilize my time or how i can simply just spontaneously improve my financial situation....
I explained to you that perhaps you should spend your time doing something else if you're upset with your financial situation, rather than getting upset about people who make more than you do --- that was pretty much it.
and honestly mr libertarian, in most medical careers, you can't just automatically make more money. you can't just wish you made an extra 2 grand a month and have it magically happen. it does not work that way in the real world of a middle class american.
Doctors make a lot of money. I agree it doesn’t happen immediately, it takes time and effort.
From my understanding, the way to make more money isn't posting on rock band's message boards. Nor, in most cases, is it rocking out at night. That's not to say neither can't be fun or enjoyable. I do both. It's to say neither "tend" to pay well. Instead, something that would pay well is education. So, for example, if you were a political science major --- which you were right? --- that was probably not a great idea because they don't make any money in that field. Instead, maybe you could look into fields that pay well. Then go back to school in that area. You'd have to give up some of the stuff you like to do to do that though. If you don’t want to do that, that’s your choice. Don’t frown on those who did.
That kinda brings me to the "effort" part. How some of these smiley rich people may have actually made sacrifices to get themselves to the position they are in. How those doctors pay your salary, etc.
and as far as the "effort" premise, what you are saying is the same, hollow, bullshit promise that the republicans since reagan have been telling the lower class and middle class to get them to vote for people who will implement and maintain trickle down economics. "pick yourself up by the bootstraps. you too can be one of us. you are on welfare now as a 50 year old man, but you too can be rich one day if you vote for us...don't worry, the wealth will trickle down to you..."
Just imagine telling a kid - "hey, there's no sense in studying. You're dumb. You'll always suck and be a low-life. " Basically, it seems you have the idea that no one can rise up.
I differ. I think everyone has choices. Some choose to medicine. Some choose to play sports. Some choose to study policial science in college. Some post on message boards. Some hunt for better jobs. Some view the world as half empty. Some as half full. That's pretty much it.
You don't have to be rich to be impressive in my eyes. I have much more respect for a janitor who is happy than a rich man who is not. That said, I don't see how that janitor could be happy if he always coveted what his neighbor had. Trying to confiscate it is even worse.
this is the republican ideal and their version or reality. the reality of most liberals and progressives is quite different. the poor do not worry about deficits on a daily basis.. they worry about where their next meal is coming from. if their power or air conditioning is going to be turned off. how they are going to pay for bus fare or prescription medications to stay alive. tese are things the most republicans have never ever had to think about.
Everything you do here - boils down to party vs. party. Re-read your statements. It's kinda sick how twisted you've become in the game. It shows through when you use the labels. You don't talk ideas, you talk teams.
You don't have to agree with tax cuts, to not blindly support the Democratic party.
what about food stamps? what about the poor? you want to cut programs that make sure those people eat so the rich can save a few grand a year? it can not work that way.
You’re so very hopeful aren’t you? Ha ha.. Anyway, I believe in people. I don't believe in government. Think about that in terms of the context of your statement.
I don't see any reason why people (who's lowest of the low form government) can't be as compassionate as government. In fact, I think they are.
how can a great country improve itself when those in government act as if they hate the lower classes?
This is one term that just bugs me. Hate? Are you f'ing serious?
There's two ways to look at this situation - equity vs. efficiency. You just don't get it – an honestly I don’t think you can. The other side believes growing the pie, not slicing it exactly equal, is the solution. If everyone makes 10% more next year - income inequality increases... but, EVERYONE is better off. Efficiency can make the poor have cell phones and TVs and heat and not die of starvation.
the military budget has to be shrunk before anything else gets cut. if i were in government and the republicans agree to significantly cut military spending i would put more of my platform on the table to be cut. if the gop refuses to put military cuts on the table, then i would not negotiate with them at all. they can not have it both ways...
No, the military budget does not have to "be shrunk" before anything else gets cut. EVERYTHING can be cut at once.
but to get the cuts, the republicans have to agree to tax increases, thats why there hasn't been enough cuts yet, congress can't agree to a budget, mainly because the republicans don't want to upset their friends
They won't cut crap. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
Last election the GOP "pledged to America" to cut $100B from the budget (which doesn't amount to jack shit). They ended up settling on $38B ... but it was all window dressing and shell game tactics.
Nothing was cut.
The GOP's worst nightmare would be if they one the presidency, the house, and the senate. They would be called out by the Tea Party to create a balanced budget.
but to get the cuts, the republicans have to agree to tax increases, thats why there hasn't been enough cuts yet, congress can't agree to a budget, mainly because the republicans don't want to upset their friends
They won't cut crap. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
Last election the GOP "pledged to America" to cut $100B from the budget (which doesn't amount to jack shit). They ended up settling on $38B ... but it was all window dressing and shell game tactics.
Nothing was cut.
The GOP's worst nightmare would be if they one the presidency, the house, and the senate. They would be called out by the Tea Party to create a balanced budget.
Like they could do that. :fp:
I compeltely agree with the bolded.... i would so get an unlimited bucket of popcorn and watch them explode :corn: having said that i think if they did manage to balance the budget without raising taxes they would face a long long long time until they where elected again
But why on the backs of the poor - the ones who can barely afford it?
Now that is priceless...they don't pay anything.
bravo, my good man...the poors making 20 grand a year should pay up...after all, what's a few hundred dollars to a poor person...perhaps they could cut back on luxuries like food and shelter...
the tents they make nowadays are simply smashing...and in my neighborhood we are simply ravaged by squirrels and feral cats...I wish someone would take care of those rodents...perhaps the poors could feed themselves and take care of this annoyance for me....
by jove, I do believe that is a bully of a idea... :angel:
yes you were condescending, and your smugness not just to me, but to everyone who disagrees with you in other threads, is getting old. before i respond to your post, i am asking you how do you think the deficit can be reduced by cutting alone? how can we cut spending enough to where it does not gut essential programs that people reply on to live and survive? it is a simple question, i hope you can answer it.
the fact is, the modern conservative idea of government is a fallacy. it is an ideaology based on the selfish notion that everyone has to look out for themselves and fuck everybody else. it is "ME ME ME" vs, the "we" that we on the left believe in. did you know that ayn rand, the author of atlas shrugged, who ron paul bases his principles on, at age 65 got on social security and medicare, and when she died of cancer all of her bills were paid for by medicare and american taxpayers???? did you know that ron paul collects social security? those people benefit from it, why shouldn't everybody else? "i'm going to collect this money until i die, but kid, when you are my age, you are on your own ha ha ha..." the health care mandate was a republican idea that many of them voted for, until obama passed it in the affordable care act.... now they say it is unconstitutional.... romney was the architect of the affordable care act, mandate included, in massachusetts, now he is running on repealing his own fucking law. the hypocracy is astounding...
we can not cut everything and cut everybody's taxes. it is unsustainable. the money that the government does have should be used for things like infrastructure, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, education, etc. if not we are going to have to raise everybody's taxes to pay for the things that we absolutely have to have.
why do you think i am begrudging rich people when i want their taxes set at the clinton levels??? i am not jealous of rich people and i am not vindictive towards them. the fact is, the economy did better, the lower classes did better, and the rich even did better under the clinton tax rates. i am not asking for handouts for myself, but we live in a society here, and in the society i envision i look out for my neighbors and that means making sure they have affordable health care and that they have food to eat. if that makes me entitled, or demanding entitlements for my fellow americans, then guilty as charged. and with conservatives, why is the other side of the argument so reactionary and thrown to the completely opposite extreme??? i want the the rich to pay their share at the clinton rates, that does not mean i hate the rich... you don't think that classes need to pay different percentages, i do.
and yes, i am aware of inflation and i am aware of the fed. how is that audit going again???
and again, no, you don't know a fucking thing about me. i was not a political science major in undergrad, and i only took one political science course....in 11th grade.... my masters degree is in a completely different area, so i am no dummy as you appear to think that i am... and at the super simplistic notion of "just go back to school in a different area." people like me have paid off our $50,000 school loans and have bought houses and work full time, what is the simple answer about how are we going to drop everything and go back to school full time?
so you are fine with republicans lying to the american people about how everybody can pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get rich? that happens in a few cases, but that is the exception. and you know that.
and again, another exampe of you going to the completely opposite extreme as in "Just imagine telling a kid - "hey, there's no sense in studying. You're dumb. You'll always suck and be a low-life. " Basically, it seems you have the idea that no one can rise up" i never ever said that. and i never advocated that. do not put words in my mouth, please and thanks... also where do you get the idea that i covet things from my neighbors??? i have bought want i want and i have what i want. i would not take anything that i could not afford from someone else.
you accuse me of boiling things down to party vs party. i am too liberal for the democrats, but they are the closest thing to my ideals and will look out for my interests more than the gop. you reference "teams". the fact is you have to have a team in this government. when is the last time one man was able to do anything in this system? one man is powerless, so he has to get a gang of people who believe in him. he can't afford to mount his own run for office, so he has to solicit money from people who believe in him. this is how political parties are formed. one man is powerless. 50 similar thinking men can be a force in this government. that is why i root for a team instead of a single man. you ron paul supporters might want to think about that...
and yes hate. hate is more prevalent in these politics than i can ever remember. why the opposition to gay marriage? why the opposition to the poor collecting benefits? why the opposition to anything obama has done? as i stated, a great nation can not improve itself when one half of the government is governing out of hate or spite???
and please answer me, when is the last time a republican has talked ideas? their only idea is to oppose every idea that obama has. that is it. plain and simple. it is easy to be the opposition candidate, just talk a bunch of shit about the incumbent and offer no ideas of your own. i know a lot of people who would be good at that...
you believe in people?? who??
if i took office tomorrow, the military budget has to be cut, and norquist needs to be run out of dc. that is my starting point. after that everything is on the table. even my beloved education, museums, and national parks.
thanks for the condescending assessment of my situation, but you don't fucking know me.
It wasn't condescending. Or at least it wasn't meant that way. I was sincerely saying to you that if you're so begrudged that the wealthy don't pay their share, you might want to show them how it's done.
i work in a physican's office about 50 hours a week and i have a lot of time to post here between patients. i drive 50 minutes each way, i have a good salary but not great, as i can afford to do most of whatever i want to do and have some nice things.
That’s awesome. Thanks for telling us. Anyways, you are the one who brought your income and now your job in to this, I did not.
you are here just as much as i am per day, because you are always online when i am, so there goes your theory about time wasted.....
Not sure that’s true or not. But, I am not someone who's saying how much I make nor am I saying that other people need to pay more as a percentage than I do. I am not asking for handouts. I am happy with my standing and if I wasn’t I would work on changing it.
fact is, i live alone, own my own house, have 2 cars, one nice luxury daily driver, one specifically for my band, and i don't need armchair economists like yourself, who do not know what i do for a living, telling me how i could better utilize my time or how i can simply just spontaneously improve my financial situation....
I explained to you that perhaps you should spend your time doing something else if you're upset with your financial situation, rather than getting upset about people who make more than you do --- that was pretty much it.
and honestly mr libertarian, in most medical careers, you can't just automatically make more money. you can't just wish you made an extra 2 grand a month and have it magically happen. it does not work that way in the real world of a middle class american.
Doctors make a lot of money. I agree it doesn’t happen immediately, it takes time and effort.
From my understanding, the way to make more money isn't posting on rock band's message boards. Nor, in most cases, is it rocking out at night. That's not to say neither can't be fun or enjoyable. I do both. It's to say neither "tend" to pay well. Instead, something that would pay well is education. So, for example, if you were a political science major --- which you were right? --- that was probably not a great idea because they don't make any money in that field. Instead, maybe you could look into fields that pay well. Then go back to school in that area. You'd have to give up some of the stuff you like to do to do that though. If you don’t want to do that, that’s your choice. Don’t frown on those who did.
That kinda brings me to the "effort" part. How some of these smiley rich people may have actually made sacrifices to get themselves to the position they are in. How those doctors pay your salary, etc.
and as far as the "effort" premise, what you are saying is the same, hollow, bullshit promise that the republicans since reagan have been telling the lower class and middle class to get them to vote for people who will implement and maintain trickle down economics. "pick yourself up by the bootstraps. you too can be one of us. you are on welfare now as a 50 year old man, but you too can be rich one day if you vote for us...don't worry, the wealth will trickle down to you..."
Just imagine telling a kid - "hey, there's no sense in studying. You're dumb. You'll always suck and be a low-life. " Basically, it seems you have the idea that no one can rise up.
I differ. I think everyone has choices. Some choose to medicine. Some choose to play sports. Some choose to study policial science in college. Some post on message boards. Some hunt for better jobs. Some view the world as half empty. Some as half full. That's pretty much it.
You don't have to be rich to be impressive in my eyes. I have much more respect for a janitor who is happy than a rich man who is not. That said, I don't see how that janitor could be happy if he always coveted what his neighbor had. Trying to confiscate it is even worse.
this is the republican ideal and their version or reality. the reality of most liberals and progressives is quite different. the poor do not worry about deficits on a daily basis.. they worry about where their next meal is coming from. if their power or air conditioning is going to be turned off. how they are going to pay for bus fare or prescription medications to stay alive. tese are things the most republicans have never ever had to think about.
Everything you do here - boils down to party vs. party. Re-read your statements. It's kinda sick how twisted you've become in the game. It shows through when you use the labels. You don't talk ideas, you talk teams.
You don't have to agree with tax cuts, to not blindly support the Democratic party.
what about food stamps? what about the poor? you want to cut programs that make sure those people eat so the rich can save a few grand a year? it can not work that way.
You’re so very hopeful aren’t you? Ha ha.. Anyway, I believe in people. I don't believe in government. Think about that in terms of the context of your statement.
I don't see any reason why people (who's lowest of the low form government) can't be as compassionate as government. In fact, I think they are.
how can a great country improve itself when those in government act as if they hate the lower classes?
This is one term that just bugs me. Hate? Are you f'ing serious?
There's two ways to look at this situation - equity vs. efficiency. You just don't get it – an honestly I don’t think you can. The other side believes growing the pie, not slicing it exactly equal, is the solution. If everyone makes 10% more next year - income inequality increases... but, EVERYONE is better off. Efficiency can make the poor have cell phones and TVs and heat and not die of starvation.
the military budget has to be shrunk before anything else gets cut. if i were in government and the republicans agree to significantly cut military spending i would put more of my platform on the table to be cut. if the gop refuses to put military cuts on the table, then i would not negotiate with them at all. they can not have it both ways...
No, the military budget does not have to "be shrunk" before anything else gets cut. EVERYTHING can be cut at once.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Right now, the maximum federal income tax rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Starting in 2013, the maximum rate on long-term gains is scheduled to go up to 20% and the maximum rate on dividends is scheduled to increase to 39.6% as the so-called Bush tax cuts expire.
This is in the Obama care Bill. I make barely 30,000 a year. My company gives me stock as a retirement plan with an option to have a 401k. I receive a dividend check yearly. This year I received about $500 after taxes which is going to help pay repairs to my 1996 Geo Prism. My Point is I am not rich and this Obama care is going to affect me. So the argument that the new taxes are only on the rich is incorrect. I can not afford to give more to our corrupt Government. They take enough out of my income already. What if the tax rate was 39.6% NOW....I would not have money to repair my car. This guy is hitting us all not just the rich.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
yes you were condescending, and your smugness not just to me, but to everyone who disagrees with you in other threads, is getting old. before i respond to your post, i am asking you how do you think the deficit can be reduced by cutting alone? how can we cut spending enough to where it does not gut essential programs that people reply on to live and survive? it is a simple question, i hope you can answer it.
the fact is, the modern conservative idea of government is a fallacy. it is an ideaology based on the selfish notion that everyone has to look out for themselves and fuck everybody else. it is "ME ME ME" vs, the "we" that we on the left believe in. did you know that ayn rand, the author of atlas shrugged, who ron paul bases his principles on, at age 65 got on social security and medicare, and when she died of cancer all of her bills were paid for by medicare and american taxpayers???? did you know that ron paul collects social security? those people benefit from it, why shouldn't everybody else? "i'm going to collect this money until i die, but kid, when you are my age, you are on your own ha ha ha..." the health care mandate was a republican idea that many of them voted for, until obama passed it in the affordable care act.... now they say it is unconstitutional.... romney was the architect of the affordable care act, mandate included, in massachusetts, now he is running on repealing his own fucking law. the hypocracy is astounding...
we can not cut everything and cut everybody's taxes. it is unsustainable. the money that the government does have should be used for things like infrastructure, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, education, etc. if not we are going to have to raise everybody's taxes to pay for the things that we absolutely have to have.
why do you think i am begrudging rich people when i want their taxes set at the clinton levels??? i am not jealous of rich people and i am not vindictive towards them. the fact is, the economy did better, the lower classes did better, and the rich even did better under the clinton tax rates. i am not asking for handouts for myself, but we live in a society here, and in the society i envision i look out for my neighbors and that means making sure they have affordable health care and that they have food to eat. if that makes me entitled, or demanding entitlements for my fellow americans, then guilty as charged. and with conservatives, why is the other side of the argument so reactionary and thrown to the completely opposite extreme??? i want the the rich to pay their share at the clinton rates, that does not mean i hate the rich... you don't think that classes need to pay different percentages, i do.
and yes, i am aware of inflation and i am aware of the fed. how is that audit going again???
and again, no, you don't know a fucking thing about me. i was not a political science major in undergrad, and i only took one political science course....in 11th grade.... my masters degree is in a completely different area, so i am no dummy as you appear to think that i am... and at the super simplistic notion of "just go back to school in a different area." people like me have paid off our $50,000 school loans and have bought houses and work full time, what is the simple answer about how are we going to drop everything and go back to school full time?
so you are fine with republicans lying to the american people about how everybody can pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get rich? that happens in a few cases, but that is the exception. and you know that.
and again, another exampe of you going to the completely opposite extreme as in "Just imagine telling a kid - "hey, there's no sense in studying. You're dumb. You'll always suck and be a low-life. " Basically, it seems you have the idea that no one can rise up" i never ever said that. and i never advocated that. do not put words in my mouth, please and thanks... also where do you get the idea that i covet things from my neighbors??? i have bought want i want and i have what i want. i would not take anything that i could not afford from someone else.
you accuse me of boiling things down to party vs party. i am too liberal for the democrats, but they are the closest thing to my ideals and will look out for my interests more than the gop. you reference "teams". the fact is you have to have a team in this government. when is the last time one man was able to do anything in this system? one man is powerless, so he has to get a gang of people who believe in him. he can't afford to mount his own run for office, so he has to solicit money from people who believe in him. this is how political parties are formed. one man is powerless. 50 similar thinking men can be a force in this government. that is why i root for a team instead of a single man. you ron paul supporters might want to think about that...
and yes hate. hate is more prevalent in these politics than i can ever remember. why the opposition to gay marriage? why the opposition to the poor collecting benefits? why the opposition to anything obama has done? as i stated, a great nation can not improve itself when one half of the government is governing out of hate or spite???
and please answer me, when is the last time a republican has talked ideas? their only idea is to oppose every idea that obama has. that is it. plain and simple. it is easy to be the opposition candidate, just talk a bunch of shit about the incumbent and offer no ideas of your own. i know a lot of people who would be good at that...
you believe in people?? who??
if i took office tomorrow, the military budget has to be cut, and norquist needs to be run out of dc. that is my starting point. after that everything is on the table. even my beloved education, museums, and national parks.
thanks for the condescending assessment of my situation, but you don't fucking know me.
It wasn't condescending. Or at least it wasn't meant that way. I was sincerely saying to you that if you're so begrudged that the wealthy don't pay their share, you might want to show them how it's done.
i work in a physican's office about 50 hours a week and i have a lot of time to post here between patients. i drive 50 minutes each way, i have a good salary but not great, as i can afford to do most of whatever i want to do and have some nice things.
That’s awesome. Thanks for telling us. Anyways, you are the one who brought your income and now your job in to this, I did not.
you are here just as much as i am per day, because you are always online when i am, so there goes your theory about time wasted.....
Not sure that’s true or not. But, I am not someone who's saying how much I make nor am I saying that other people need to pay more as a percentage than I do. I am not asking for handouts. I am happy with my standing and if I wasn’t I would work on changing it.
fact is, i live alone, own my own house, have 2 cars, one nice luxury daily driver, one specifically for my band, and i don't need armchair economists like yourself, who do not know what i do for a living, telling me how i could better utilize my time or how i can simply just spontaneously improve my financial situation....
I explained to you that perhaps you should spend your time doing something else if you're upset with your financial situation, rather than getting upset about people who make more than you do --- that was pretty much it.
and honestly mr libertarian, in most medical careers, you can't just automatically make more money. you can't just wish you made an extra 2 grand a month and have it magically happen. it does not work that way in the real world of a middle class american.
Doctors make a lot of money. I agree it doesn’t happen immediately, it takes time and effort.
From my understanding, the way to make more money isn't posting on rock band's message boards. Nor, in most cases, is it rocking out at night. That's not to say neither can't be fun or enjoyable. I do both. It's to say neither "tend" to pay well. Instead, something that would pay well is education. So, for example, if you were a political science major --- which you were right? --- that was probably not a great idea because they don't make any money in that field. Instead, maybe you could look into fields that pay well. Then go back to school in that area. You'd have to give up some of the stuff you like to do to do that though. If you don’t want to do that, that’s your choice. Don’t frown on those who did.
That kinda brings me to the "effort" part. How some of these smiley rich people may have actually made sacrifices to get themselves to the position they are in. How those doctors pay your salary, etc.
and as far as the "effort" premise, what you are saying is the same, hollow, bullshit promise that the republicans since reagan have been telling the lower class and middle class to get them to vote for people who will implement and maintain trickle down economics. "pick yourself up by the bootstraps. you too can be one of us. you are on welfare now as a 50 year old man, but you too can be rich one day if you vote for us...don't worry, the wealth will trickle down to you..."
Just imagine telling a kid - "hey, there's no sense in studying. You're dumb. You'll always suck and be a low-life. " Basically, it seems you have the idea that no one can rise up.
I differ. I think everyone has choices. Some choose to medicine. Some choose to play sports. Some choose to study policial science in college. Some post on message boards. Some hunt for better jobs. Some view the world as half empty. Some as half full. That's pretty much it.
You don't have to be rich to be impressive in my eyes. I have much more respect for a janitor who is happy than a rich man who is not. That said, I don't see how that janitor could be happy if he always coveted what his neighbor had. Trying to confiscate it is even worse.
this is the republican ideal and their version or reality. the reality of most liberals and progressives is quite different. the poor do not worry about deficits on a daily basis.. they worry about where their next meal is coming from. if their power or air conditioning is going to be turned off. how they are going to pay for bus fare or prescription medications to stay alive. tese are things the most republicans have never ever had to think about.
Everything you do here - boils down to party vs. party. Re-read your statements. It's kinda sick how twisted you've become in the game. It shows through when you use the labels. You don't talk ideas, you talk teams.
You don't have to agree with tax cuts, to not blindly support the Democratic party.
what about food stamps? what about the poor? you want to cut programs that make sure those people eat so the rich can save a few grand a year? it can not work that way.
You’re so very hopeful aren’t you? Ha ha.. Anyway, I believe in people. I don't believe in government. Think about that in terms of the context of your statement.
I don't see any reason why people (who's lowest of the low form government) can't be as compassionate as government. In fact, I think they are.
how can a great country improve itself when those in government act as if they hate the lower classes?
This is one term that just bugs me. Hate? Are you f'ing serious?
There's two ways to look at this situation - equity vs. efficiency. You just don't get it – an honestly I don’t think you can. The other side believes growing the pie, not slicing it exactly equal, is the solution. If everyone makes 10% more next year - income inequality increases... but, EVERYONE is better off. Efficiency can make the poor have cell phones and TVs and heat and not die of starvation.
the military budget has to be shrunk before anything else gets cut. if i were in government and the republicans agree to significantly cut military spending i would put more of my platform on the table to be cut. if the gop refuses to put military cuts on the table, then i would not negotiate with them at all. they can not have it both ways...
No, the military budget does not have to "be shrunk" before anything else gets cut. EVERYTHING can be cut at once.
How is anyone going to have affordable health care if they have no job? How are they going to Afford it? I and the company I work for pay for my insurance and I still can't afford health care. Does anyone know how much its going to cost or are people buying into this because they are using key word Affordable ?
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
But why on the backs of the poor - the ones who can barely afford it?
Now that is priceless...they don't pay anything.
bravo, my good man...the poors making 20 grand a year should pay up...after all, what's a few hundred dollars to a poor person...perhaps they could cut back on luxuries like food and shelter...
the tents they make nowadays are simply smashing...and in my neighborhood we are simply ravaged by squirrels and feral cats...I wish someone would take care of those rodents...perhaps the poors could feed themselves and take care of this annoyance for me....
by jove, I do believe that is a bully of a idea... :angel:
You are on a roll with your new persona, despite not actually making any point or speaking to the posts you quote.
hippiemom = goodness
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
"I'm not doing anything radical here," Obama said. Exactly. I can't see how anyone making over 250 K per year would complain. At the most they pay a couple thousand dollars more a year in taxes. BFD. Meanwhile those of us who are self-employed and see 250 K as WAY beyond our scope pay both halves into social security and I don't see that changing.
Super rich- stop whining!
250k/yr for a family isn't super rich.
The ones whining are those asking other to pay for all their shit...yet again, and again, and again...
Is is to me!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
Here's something I want to know: why are some of you so supportive of the ultra privileged and small minority of the rich, very rich and ultra rich in this country? The gap between the haves and have-nots keeps growing and unless you are SUPER fortunate you'll grow to dislike the disparity sooner or later... I just don't get it.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
But why on the backs of the poor - the ones who can barely afford it?
Now that is priceless...they don't pay anything.
bravo, my good man...the poors making 20 grand a year should pay up...after all, what's a few hundred dollars to a poor person...perhaps they could cut back on luxuries like food and shelter...
the tents they make nowadays are simply smashing...and in my neighborhood we are simply ravaged by squirrels and feral cats...I wish someone would take care of those rodents...perhaps the poors could feed themselves and take care of this annoyance for me....
by jove, I do believe that is a bully of a idea... :angel:
Here, here! Two squirrels in every pot!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
before i respond to your post, i am asking you how do you think the deficit can be reduced by cutting alone?
It’s really simple… if I have a budget and I plan to spend $40,000 in a year, but I only plan to make $30,000… I can cut $10,000 of spending and end with a balanced budget. The math is so simple a 4th grader could understand it.
how can we cut spending enough to where it does not gut essential programs that people reply on to live and survive? it is a simple question, i hope you can answer it.
I already explained that – we could make cuts across the board. Everyone would have a shared sacrifice that way. Further, I don’t really feel like government does a good job helping people “live and survive”. But, that’s my opinion.
the fact is, the modern conservative idea of government is a fallacy. it is an ideaology based on the selfish notion that everyone has to look out for themselves and fuck everybody else. it is "ME ME ME" vs, the "we" that we on the left believe in.
But seriously, please, take a moment and re-read the zombie nonsense you just wrote. I can’t even respond to this drivel.
did you know that ayn rand, the author of atlas shrugged, who ron paul bases his principles on, at age 65 got on social security and medicare, and when she died of cancer all of her bills were paid for by medicare and american taxpayers???? did you know that ron paul collects social security? those people benefit from it, why shouldn't everybody else? "i'm going to collect this money until i die, but kid, when you are my age, you are on your own ha ha ha..."
You make absolutely no sense here and you just don’t get it. Here’s why – both of these individuals do not believe the government handles money well. They’d prefer to handle their own money. They paid into the system because they are forced to do so. When they have the ability to extract funds out of the system of course they will. Why? Well, first, they don’t want that money in the system to begin with. Second, they feel it’s theirs.
Also, their point is the whole system is broken... you're basically siding with that point of view... I don't get it.
the health care mandate was a republican idea that many of them voted for, until obama passed it in the affordable care act.... now they say it is unconstitutional.... romney was the architect of the affordable care act, mandate included, in massachusetts, now he is running on repealing his own fucking law. the hypocracy is astounding...
I could care less about the pom-poms and cheerleading republican vs. democrat nonsense. As far as the healthcare act, I don’t care if it’s Romney or Obama or Democrats or Republicans…. I don’t like the mandate. It has nothing to do with parties. For some reason your responses always drone back into zombie political party lingo.
we can not cut everything and cut everybody's taxes. it is unsustainable. the money that the government does have should be used for things like infrastructure, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, education, etc. if not we are going to have to raise everybody's taxes to pay for the things that we absolutely have to have.
First, let’s understand something. We’re not “cutting” taxes. Taxes are as they are. They would be raised if the current policy that’s been in place since the last administration and for four years under the current administration is altered.
Second, yes, we can cut everything. There’s absolutely no reason we can’t cut everything. We could look at each department and cut it by X%.
why do you think i am begrudging rich people when i want their taxes set at the clinton levels???
I think you’re begrudging rich people because of your previous posts where you were begrudging rich people. You were complaining about how much you make and how much they make in a begrudging manner.
i am not jealous of rich people and i am not vindictive towards them. the fact is, the economy did better, the lower classes did better, and the rich even did better under the clinton tax rates.
I don’t agree with this point, but this is the first point where you’re logic actually makes sense. So, I won’t even go further. Congrats on these two sentences.
i am not asking for handouts for myself, but we live in a society here, and in the society i envision i look out for my neighbors and that means making sure they have affordable health care and that they have food to eat.
But, see this is slightly insincere when you’re also asking for the rewards yourself – which you have in different form and mediums.
Moreover, why can’t you go to help at a shelter if you’re so concerned? Or set up a charity to help directly? Do you really believe the government doesn’t waste any of that money that’s supposed to be directed to these areas? Remember this is the same government that according to you pick the pocketed social security fund. I’m sure they wouldn’t do that elsewhere.
if that makes me entitled, or demanding entitlements for my fellow americans, then guilty as charged. and with conservatives, why is the other side of the argument so reactionary and thrown to the completely opposite extreme??? i want the the rich to pay their share at the clinton rates, that does not mean i hate the rich... you don't think that classes need to pay different percentages, i do.
Classes do pay different percentages under the current system. The top 1% pay close to 40% of all income taxes. Those making over $250K pay about 50% of all taxes. We have a progressive system.
and yes, i am aware of inflation and i am aware of the fed. how is that audit going again???
Well, when you complain about rising prices or not being able to afford x, y or z – keep that in mind. Look at the Money Supply. How has it changed recently? Who controls it?
and again, no, you don't know a fucking thing about me. i was not a political science major in undergrad, and i only took one political science course....in 11th grade.... my masters degree is in a completely different area, so i am no dummy as you appear to think that i am...
All I know is you said you were a poly sci major. Futher, I know you were complaining about your wage. I offered advice.
and at the super simplistic notion of "just go back to school in a different area." people like me have paid off our $50,000 school loans and have bought houses and work full time, what is the simple answer about how are we going to drop everything and go back to school full time?
Simple answer – go to school at night like the hundreds of thousands of other adults who do.
so you are fine with republicans lying to the american people about how everybody can pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get rich? that happens in a few cases, but that is the exception. and you know that.
I’m not fine with anyone lying to the American people ever. Parties, people or what have you. But, I don’t think the line you just uttered is a lie. In my opinion, an average person – if they work hard – can be successful. Further, if their sole goal is to “get rich”. I believe they can. My point back is – that’s not most people’s sole goal. Some want friends. Some want family. Some are lazy. Some want to focus on other areas – rock bands, posting on message boards, playing video games. It’s not easy. But, yet…. Can a person of average intelligence do it if that’s their sole goal? YES!
and again, another exampe of you going to the completely opposite extreme as in "Just imagine telling a kid - "hey, there's no sense in studying. You're dumb. You'll always suck and be a low-life. " Basically, it seems you have the idea that no one can rise up" i never ever said that. and i never advocated that. do not put words in my mouth, please and thanks...
You are saying in the quote above (and said in more detail in the quote I was responding to) that you can’t pull yourself up and increase your wealth. You did advocate something similar. You are basically saying you CAN’T to the “poor” in one way or another.
also where do you get the idea that i covet things from my neighbors??? i have bought want i want and i have what i want. i would not take anything that i could not afford from someone else.
I was speaking in hyperbole regarding a janitor. But, yes I do believe you covet things from your rich neighbors. You covet their wealth. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be bitching about increasing their taxes. So, this whole point here is pretty much BS.
you accuse me of boiling things down to party vs party. i am too liberal for the democrats, but they are the closest thing to my ideals and will look out for my interests more than the gop. you reference "teams". the fact is you have to have a team in this government. when is the last time one man was able to do anything in this system? one man is powerless, so he has to get a gang of people who believe in him. he can't afford to mount his own run for office, so he has to solicit money from people who believe in him. this is how political parties are formed. one man is powerless. 50 similar thinking men can be a force in this government. that is why i root for a team instead of a single man. you ron paul supporters might want to think about that...
Good for you, man. What you don’t understand is that you’re the tiniest of tiny pawns – your vote makes no difference whatsoever. In other words, in the grand scheme – you’re meaningless in the game that you love. Special interests rule politics and your beloved political party or team. But, keep your foam finger out if it makes you happy.
I don’t think government should be involved in marriage at all. But, I suppose there are some who agree or disagree with that policy. Does agree or disagree mean hate?
why the opposition to the poor collecting benefits?
Not sure I’ve seen this one first hand – but, if one sees an individual collecting a form of benefits when they are gaming the system (and are doing quite well) is that cause for alarm? Moreover, is saying that one believes they should be entitled to what they earn mean they hate everyone else? How about those who sincerely believe in the saying “give a man a fish – he’ll live for a day, teach a man to fish –he’ll live a lifetime”?
as i stated, a great nation can not improve itself when one half of the government is governing out of hate or spite???
If the hate exists and you believe the hate is one sided, you’re a complete moron. You don’t think “spite or hate” come from both “teams”? Seriously, are you that deluded?
and please answer me, when is the last time a republican has talked ideas? their only idea is to oppose every idea that obama has. that is it. plain and simple. it is easy to be the opposition candidate, just talk a bunch of shit about the incumbent and offer no ideas of your own. i know a lot of people who would be good at that...
I don’t follow republicans closely, but I’m pretty sure there has been ideas suggested on both sides – Democrats or Republicans… it’s their zombie followers who just drone on in team format. For example, Obamacare is an idea, as was the Republican plan put forth by Paul Ryan. They are both “ideas” if that’s what you’re looking for.
You really seem to want to hop in the sack with a big letter D. Go at it man, I’m all for that tho. Enjoy it.
I believe in common people. As I stated earlier, I believe an average person can do a lot. If their goal is to become wealthy and they put in the effort, I believe they can do that.
But, what I meant here was I believe people will be charitable to those who are misfortunate. Unlike you, I don’t believe government is necessary in that process.
if i took office tomorrow, the military budget has to be cut, and norquist needs to be run out of dc. that is my starting point. after that everything is on the table. even my beloved education, museums, and national parks.
I am fine with cutting military budget and all other budgets.
Here's something I want to know: why are some of you so supportive of the ultra privileged and small minority of the rich, very rich and ultra rich in this country? The gap between the haves and have-nots keeps growing and unless you are SUPER fortunate you'll grow to dislike the disparity sooner or later... I just don't get it.
1) I. Don't like anyone's money being wasted
2) didn't they earn it?
3) I don't think $250,000/year is supper rich
4) to. Truely tax the "super rich" you don't tax incomes
Cut spending drastically and I will talk about tax raises.
Here's something I want to know: why are some of you so supportive of the ultra privileged and small minority of the rich, very rich and ultra rich in this country? The gap between the haves and have-nots keeps growing and unless you are SUPER fortunate you'll grow to dislike the disparity sooner or later... I just don't get it.
I'll respond to this:
Couple things -
1) They already pay a higher share then those who make less
2) They are job creators, whether people want to admit that or not
3) Government is terribly inefficient. Further, and more importantly, they spend everything they make and much, much more. One way to constrain their incredibly irresponsible spending (republicans and democrats alike) is to constrain their income.
4) The line about the gap between the haves and have nots is total bullshit (at least recently)... the gap between the two has been closing since the recession: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/10/ ... oorer.html
5) Point 4 (where the recession is causing a closing gap) means that there's a tradeoff between efficiency (growth) and equity (decreasing the gap between the "haves and the have nots"). We're in a recession and that gap is falling, when we're not - it increases. As I've mentioned in other threads, someone making $300K vs. $30K.... each increase 10%... it's now $330 and $33. Gap increased. If incomes fall 10% ... $270 and $27.... gap narrowed. Simple math. I'd prefer "growth" to equity because the "poor" are better off, as are the rich, as am I.
6) Our major concern right now is Debt/GDP. Admittedly, raising taxes may help "debt" in the short run, but it will hurt GDP - taxes won't help production. Further, in the long run, the slowdown in GDP will hit the "debt" aspect.... it's lose-lose... and honestly, that's the reason Obama never did squat about these taxcuts even when Dems controlled congress. And, he won't. This is a political charade, that is being replayed four years later.
before i respond to your post, i am asking you how do you think the deficit can be reduced by cutting alone?
It’s really simple… if I have a budget and I plan to spend $40,000 in a year, but I only plan to make $30,000… I can cut $10,000 of spending and end with a balanced budget. The math is so simple a 4th grader could understand it.
how can we cut spending enough to where it does not gut essential programs that people reply on to live and survive? it is a simple question, i hope you can answer it.
I already explained that – we could make cuts across the board. Everyone would have a shared sacrifice that way. Further, I don’t really feel like government does a good job helping people “live and survive”. But, that’s my opinion.
the fact is, the modern conservative idea of government is a fallacy. it is an ideaology based on the selfish notion that everyone has to look out for themselves and fuck everybody else. it is "ME ME ME" vs, the "we" that we on the left believe in.
But seriously, please, take a moment and re-read the zombie nonsense you just wrote. I can’t even respond to this drivel.
did you know that ayn rand, the author of atlas shrugged, who ron paul bases his principles on, at age 65 got on social security and medicare, and when she died of cancer all of her bills were paid for by medicare and american taxpayers???? did you know that ron paul collects social security? those people benefit from it, why shouldn't everybody else? "i'm going to collect this money until i die, but kid, when you are my age, you are on your own ha ha ha..."
You make absolutely no sense here and you just don’t get it. Here’s why – both of these individuals do not believe the government handles money well. They’d prefer to handle their own money. They paid into the system because they are forced to do so. When they have the ability to extract funds out of the system of course they will. Why? Well, first, they don’t want that money in the system to begin with. Second, they feel it’s theirs.
Also, their point is the whole system is broken... you're basically siding with that point of view... I don't get it.
the health care mandate was a republican idea that many of them voted for, until obama passed it in the affordable care act.... now they say it is unconstitutional.... romney was the architect of the affordable care act, mandate included, in massachusetts, now he is running on repealing his own fucking law. the hypocracy is astounding...
I could care less about the pom-poms and cheerleading republican vs. democrat nonsense. As far as the healthcare act, I don’t care if it’s Romney or Obama or Democrats or Republicans…. I don’t like the mandate. It has nothing to do with parties. For some reason your responses always drone back into zombie political party lingo.
we can not cut everything and cut everybody's taxes. it is unsustainable. the money that the government does have should be used for things like infrastructure, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, education, etc. if not we are going to have to raise everybody's taxes to pay for the things that we absolutely have to have.
First, let’s understand something. We’re not “cutting” taxes. Taxes are as they are. They would be raised if the current policy that’s been in place since the last administration and for four years under the current administration is altered.
Second, yes, we can cut everything. There’s absolutely no reason we can’t cut everything. We could look at each department and cut it by X%.
why do you think i am begrudging rich people when i want their taxes set at the clinton levels???
I think you’re begrudging rich people because of your previous posts where you were begrudging rich people. You were complaining about how much you make and how much they make in a begrudging manner.
i am not jealous of rich people and i am not vindictive towards them. the fact is, the economy did better, the lower classes did better, and the rich even did better under the clinton tax rates.
I don’t agree with this point, but this is the first point where you’re logic actually makes sense. So, I won’t even go further. Congrats on these two sentences.
i am not asking for handouts for myself, but we live in a society here, and in the society i envision i look out for my neighbors and that means making sure they have affordable health care and that they have food to eat.
But, see this is slightly insincere when you’re also asking for the rewards yourself – which you have in different form and mediums.
Moreover, why can’t you go to help at a shelter if you’re so concerned? Or set up a charity to help directly? Do you really believe the government doesn’t waste any of that money that’s supposed to be directed to these areas? Remember this is the same government that according to you pick the pocketed social security fund. I’m sure they wouldn’t do that elsewhere.
if that makes me entitled, or demanding entitlements for my fellow americans, then guilty as charged. and with conservatives, why is the other side of the argument so reactionary and thrown to the completely opposite extreme??? i want the the rich to pay their share at the clinton rates, that does not mean i hate the rich... you don't think that classes need to pay different percentages, i do.
Classes do pay different percentages under the current system. The top 1% pay close to 40% of all income taxes. Those making over $250K pay about 50% of all taxes. We have a progressive system.
and yes, i am aware of inflation and i am aware of the fed. how is that audit going again???
Well, when you complain about rising prices or not being able to afford x, y or z – keep that in mind. Look at the Money Supply. How has it changed recently? Who controls it?
and again, no, you don't know a fucking thing about me. i was not a political science major in undergrad, and i only took one political science course....in 11th grade.... my masters degree is in a completely different area, so i am no dummy as you appear to think that i am...
All I know is you said you were a poly sci major. Futher, I know you were complaining about your wage. I offered advice.
and at the super simplistic notion of "just go back to school in a different area." people like me have paid off our $50,000 school loans and have bought houses and work full time, what is the simple answer about how are we going to drop everything and go back to school full time?
Simple answer – go to school at night like the hundreds of thousands of other adults who do.
so you are fine with republicans lying to the american people about how everybody can pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get rich? that happens in a few cases, but that is the exception. and you know that.
I’m not fine with anyone lying to the American people ever. Parties, people or what have you. But, I don’t think the line you just uttered is a lie. In my opinion, an average person – if they work hard – can be successful. Further, if their sole goal is to “get rich”. I believe they can. My point back is – that’s not most people’s sole goal. Some want friends. Some want family. Some are lazy. Some want to focus on other areas – rock bands, posting on message boards, playing video games. It’s not easy. But, yet…. Can a person of average intelligence do it if that’s their sole goal? YES!
and again, another exampe of you going to the completely opposite extreme as in "Just imagine telling a kid - "hey, there's no sense in studying. You're dumb. You'll always suck and be a low-life. " Basically, it seems you have the idea that no one can rise up" i never ever said that. and i never advocated that. do not put words in my mouth, please and thanks...
You are saying in the quote above (and said in more detail in the quote I was responding to) that you can’t pull yourself up and increase your wealth. You did advocate something similar. You are basically saying you CAN’T to the “poor” in one way or another.
also where do you get the idea that i covet things from my neighbors??? i have bought want i want and i have what i want. i would not take anything that i could not afford from someone else.
I was speaking in hyperbole regarding a janitor. But, yes I do believe you covet things from your rich neighbors. You covet their wealth. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be bitching about increasing their taxes. So, this whole point here is pretty much BS.
you accuse me of boiling things down to party vs party. i am too liberal for the democrats, but they are the closest thing to my ideals and will look out for my interests more than the gop. you reference "teams". the fact is you have to have a team in this government. when is the last time one man was able to do anything in this system? one man is powerless, so he has to get a gang of people who believe in him. he can't afford to mount his own run for office, so he has to solicit money from people who believe in him. this is how political parties are formed. one man is powerless. 50 similar thinking men can be a force in this government. that is why i root for a team instead of a single man. you ron paul supporters might want to think about that...
Good for you, man. What you don’t understand is that you’re the tiniest of tiny pawns – your vote makes no difference whatsoever. In other words, in the grand scheme – you’re meaningless in the game that you love. Special interests rule politics and your beloved political party or team. But, keep your foam finger out if it makes you happy.
I don’t think government should be involved in marriage at all. But, I suppose there are some who agree or disagree with that policy. Does agree or disagree mean hate?
why the opposition to the poor collecting benefits?
Not sure I’ve seen this one first hand – but, if one sees an individual collecting a form of benefits when they are gaming the system (and are doing quite well) is that cause for alarm? Moreover, is saying that one believes they should be entitled to what they earn mean they hate everyone else? How about those who sincerely believe in the saying “give a man a fish – he’ll live for a day, teach a man to fish –he’ll live a lifetime”?
as i stated, a great nation can not improve itself when one half of the government is governing out of hate or spite???
If the hate exists and you believe the hate is one sided, you’re a complete moron. You don’t think “spite or hate” come from both “teams”? Seriously, are you that deluded?
and please answer me, when is the last time a republican has talked ideas? their only idea is to oppose every idea that obama has. that is it. plain and simple. it is easy to be the opposition candidate, just talk a bunch of shit about the incumbent and offer no ideas of your own. i know a lot of people who would be good at that...
I don’t follow republicans closely, but I’m pretty sure there has been ideas suggested on both sides – Democrats or Republicans… it’s their zombie followers who just drone on in team format. For example, Obamacare is an idea, as was the Republican plan put forth by Paul Ryan. They are both “ideas” if that’s what you’re looking for.
You really seem to want to hop in the sack with a big letter D. Go at it man, I’m all for that tho. Enjoy it.
I believe in common people. As I stated earlier, I believe an average person can do a lot. If their goal is to become wealthy and they put in the effort, I believe they can do that.
But, what I meant here was I believe people will be charitable to those who are misfortunate. Unlike you, I don’t believe government is necessary in that process.
if i took office tomorrow, the military budget has to be cut, and norquist needs to be run out of dc. that is my starting point. after that everything is on the table. even my beloved education, museums, and national parks.
I am fine with cutting military budget and all other budgets.
wow, i have never had anyone go through so many of my posts and pick every point apart before. it is a little creepy to be honest...but kind of flattering as well...congratulations for wasting so much of your time trying to convince me that i am the problem...
:roll:
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
The wealthy are feeling defensive about their taxes. Most Americans may think the rich pay too little but, not surprisingly, only 30 percent of the rich agree. More than two-thirds of families earning a quarter of a million dollars a year or more tell Gallup’s pollsters that their taxes are too high.
It is true that high-income Americans carry the biggest tax burden. While fewer than 1 in 20 families make more than $200,000, they pay almost half of all federal taxes.
However they feel about the tax man, there is a case to be made that they can pay much more. The reason has nothing to do with fairness, justice or ideology. It is about economics and math.
The math is easy: the federal budget over the next decade cannot be made to square without raising a lot more money. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we stay on our current path, federal debt held by the public will grow from about two-thirds of gross domestic product today to roughly 100 percent in a decade and twice that much by 2040. It is unlikely that even the most committed Republicans could reverse the trend without higher taxes.
But an equally compelling reason relies on a new understanding of the economics of taxation. For 30 years, any proposal to raise taxes had to overcome an unshakable belief that higher taxes inevitably led to less growth. The belief survived the Clinton administration, when taxes rose and the economy surged. It survived George W. Bush’s administration, when taxes were cut yet growth sagged.
But now, a growing body of research suggests not only that the government could raise much more revenue by sharply raising the top tax rates paid by the richest Americans, but it could do so without slowing economic growth. Top tax rates could go as high as 80 percent or more.
Admittedly, it seems inconceivable that our political system could stomach a tax increase that big. Today, the richest 1 percent of Americans pay a top federal rate of 29 percent, according to Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. That’s because almost a third of their income derives from capital gains and dividends — which are taxed at a 15 percent rate — while the rest is ordinary income taxed at a top marginal rate of 35 percent.
Nonetheless, the research suggests there is much more money available to close the budget deficit than we previously thought, if only we were willing to raise tax rates to where they were back in the early ’70s, in the administration of Richard M. Nixon.
Taxpayers always want to pay less to the tax man. Still, there’s nothing inevitable about low taxes. In the early 1950s, coming out of World War II, the top federal income tax rate exceeded 90 percent. In 1980, the top marginal rate was 70 percent for families making more than $215,400 — about $587,000 in current dollars. And these families pocketed a much smaller share of the nation’s income than they do now. Today, people earning over $200,000 a year capture more than a third of national income.
How we got from that country to this one — where President Obama’s attempt to raise the top federal rate to 39.6 percent from 36 percent sets off partisan warfare — had less to do with changing beliefs about fairness than with politics. By the mid-1970s, the Republican Party concluded it was probably more effective to counter Democrats’ Big Government platform as the party of low taxes than as the party of budget discipline.
Economics helped them make their case. The sharp fall in tax rates that brought us to where we are today was buttressed by an economic proposition that has guided policy ever since: that raising taxes could backfire and harm the economy along the way.
Legend has it the idea entered the political mainstream during a meeting in Washington in 1974 in which the economist Arthur Laffer demonstrated the principle to Donald Rumsfeld, chief of staff to then-President Gerald Ford, and Dick Cheney, an assistant to the president. He drew a curve on a cocktail napkin — now known as the Laffer curve — to illustrate how tax revenues would increase less and less as tax rates rose until they reached a point where any future increase reduced the amount of money raised.
If taxes were too high, Mr. Laffer argued, people would come up with ways to avoid or evade them. They might postpone or cancel investments if the government were to tax away a large share of the rewards. They might work less, or put less effort into it. In this way, high taxes could reduce the total tax haul. More worryingly, this behavior would ultimately slow economic growth.
Economists today broadly accept this understanding of people’s actions. This belief has supported big declines in tax rates around the developed world, from Japan to Britain and the United States to Sweden.
But something got lost in the rush to cut: the proposition does not support low taxes all the time, for everybody and at all costs. While raising tax rates beyond a certain threshold can reduce tax revenue, we don’t know where the peak is. After decades of tax cuts, it is not unreasonable to think we are way below it. And though raising taxes will change taxpayers’ behaviors in a way that could reduce economic growth, we don’t know precisely how much. It turns out the impact of raising tax rates on the rich may be smaller than we thought.
The British went out of their way to shield income from the taxes after the Labour government raised the top income tax rate to 50 percent from 40 percent in 2010. High fliers asked for accelerated bonuses to get the money before the new tax rate went into effect. Then, they postponed income, hoping Labour would be kicked out of office. More than a thousand people moved to Switzerland.
This month, the new Liberal-Conservative government concluded that the tax increase had brought in too little new money and cut the top rate to 45 percent. Yet while the experience confirmed that taxpayers will do their best to avoid taxes, many of these tactics work only in the short term. Eventually, they’ll have to pay what they owe.
There are several studies that suggest top rates paid by high-income taxpayers above a certain threshold of earnings could be substantially higher. A study published last November by Mr. Saez and Peter Diamond, the economics Nobel laureate from M.I.T., made the biggest splash.
Their study suggested the federal government could raise the top marginal rate to 76 percent without losing revenue if it closed all the loopholes to prevent taxpayers from reclassifying income on their tax returns just to pay less. The top tax rate could rise to 48 percent even if we kept the loopholes we have today, they found.
Perhaps the most controversial conclusion, made by Mr. Saez and two colleagues in another study published last December, is that while the rich would respond to a big tax increase by shielding income from the tax man and maybe working less, this would not slow the economy at all. That’s because a lot of what the rich do does not, in fact, generate economic growth. So if they reduced their effort in response to higher taxes, the economy wouldn’t suffer.
These arguments are not the mainstream view. Some economists really dislike them. And they are not absolutely airtight. The calculations rely on estimates about how higher tax rates would discourage the rich from working or investing over a couple of years at most. But we know little about how they might affect long-term decisions, like whether to become a brain surgeon or a hedge fund manager. We do know that in countries with higher tax rates, like France, people work fewer hours than in the United States.
But the new line of research has the potential to overturn contemporary thinking about government finances. And in one respect, it seems indisputable: three decades of tax cuts may have gilded the pockets of the rich, but they didn’t provide much economic juice. Among developed nations, incomes per person grew no faster in countries like the United States and Britain that slashed their top tax rates than in countries like Spain, Germany or Denmark, which did not. If taxes didn’t juice the engine of growth on the way down, there is little reason to fear they will stall it on the way back up.
American tax politics have not changed. Republicans act as if cutting is the only legitimate thing to do with taxes. Their proposals to address the budget deficit thus rely on a mix of ambiguous commitments to close unspecified loopholes and the fairly radical assumption that voters won’t mind losing a big chunk of what the government does. And Republican arguments to the contrary, President Obama’s plan to raise $2.1 trillion in new taxes over the coming decade — mostly from high-income taxpayers — is comparatively modest.
Raising the top tax rates on the richest Americans could go a long way toward balancing the federal budget. Mr. Saez estimated that raising the top tax rate on the top 1 percent of earners to 67 percent would raise about $4 trillion over a decade. That’s a start.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
Here's something I want to know: why are some of you so supportive of the ultra privileged and small minority of the rich, very rich and ultra rich in this country? The gap between the haves and have-nots keeps growing and unless you are SUPER fortunate you'll grow to dislike the disparity sooner or later... I just don't get it.
I'll respond to this:
Couple things -
1) They already pay a higher share then those who make less
2) They are job creators, whether people want to admit that or not
3) Government is terribly inefficient. Further, and more importantly, they spend everything they make and much, much more. One way to constrain their incredibly irresponsible spending (republicans and democrats alike) is to constrain their income.
4) The line about the gap between the haves and have nots is total bullshit (at least recently)... the gap between the two has been closing since the recession: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/10/ ... oorer.html
5) Point 4 (where the recession is causing a closing gap) means that there's a tradeoff between efficiency (growth) and equity (decreasing the gap between the "haves and the have nots"). We're in a recession and that gap is falling, when we're not - it increases. As I've mentioned in other threads, someone making $300K vs. $30K.... each increase 10%... it's now $330 and $33. Gap increased. If incomes fall 10% ... $270 and $27.... gap narrowed. Simple math. I'd prefer "growth" to equity because the "poor" are better off, as are the rich, as am I.
6) Our major concern right now is Debt/GDP. Admittedly, raising taxes may help "debt" in the short run, but it will hurt GDP - taxes won't help production. Further, in the long run, the slowdown in GDP will hit the "debt" aspect.... it's lose-lose... and honestly, that's the reason Obama never did squat about these taxcuts even when Dems controlled congress. And, he won't. This is a political charade, that is being replayed four years later.
Yes but:
1. They have loads of tax loops holes the rest of us do not.
2. The jobs they create often pay poorly and those jobs are mostly intended to serve the wealthy. These "jobs" are often grunt work just above slavery.
3. Yes, the government is often inefficient but this has nothing to do with left or right so that one's a draw.
4. Really? I don't buy it. Statistics lie. I rely on what I know and see and hear.
5. Sorry if this sounds trite but, "Growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
6.You mean your major concern is Debt/GDP. My biggest concern is depletion of natural resources, environmental degradation, climate change and tinnitus. (Notice how niftily I avoid being labeled a "pom pom waver". )
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
bravo, my good man...the poors making 20 grand a year should pay up...after all, what's a few hundred dollars to a poor person...perhaps they could cut back on luxuries like food and shelter...
the tents they make nowadays are simply smashing...and in my neighborhood we are simply ravaged by squirrels and feral cats...I wish someone would take care of those rodents...perhaps the poors could feed themselves and take care of this annoyance for me....
by jove, I do believe that is a bully of a idea... :angel:
You are on a roll with your new persona, despite not actually making any point or speaking to the posts you quote.
ha, thanks...it was fun...
I disagree about not addressing points...I did address points...you just don't agree with them...or maybe the big words threw you off...
you see, I find it ironic and disheartening that folks are so concerned about the top few percent...and think they can't cope with a tax rates returning to the clinton days...while at the same time thinking those on the bottom rung should pay more....I just don't get it...
all I hear is "spending is out of control" but "we can't raise taxes" however "we can't cut the military" but "let's cut education and health programs for women" and " because if we don't, china will take us over"...
but you never hear...."well, we fucked up and engaged in a war of choice and we are still in another war, both of which were unfunded and we gave everyone a tax cut but didn't figure out how to pay for them so I guess it's time to pay up"....no you don't hear that....all I read and see is bitching about everything but many folks are too f-n selfish to say "we'll we did run up these bills, I guess it's time to pay up"....it's not hard to understand and many know that I'm right...
anyhoo...folks can stick up for the rich and hate on the poors....that's fine...but that damn sure is not going fix anything...
a final note....I think all the bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire...I'm fine with paying more in taxes...I love this country and I'm ok with helping fund it...
a final note....I think all the bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire...I'm fine with paying more in taxes...I love this country and I'm ok with helping fund it...
I love my country.
I also love my house. But if I was doing a remodel and the contractor kept screwing up, I wouldn't be fine with paying for those screwups.
a final note....I think all the bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire...I'm fine with paying more in taxes...I love this country and I'm ok with helping fund it...
I love my country.
I also love my house. But if I was doing a remodel and the contractor kept screwing up, I wouldn't be fine with paying for those screwups.
I know you're being facetious with this response...I assume you agree with the rest of my post...
this next part is a general comment...not toward you, JP...
and country of 300+ million is not the same as a single house...folks tend to operate in a bubble...they tend to think of only their house...they like to forget about the other millions of houses...
and I don't understand why folks hate the gov't so much...head on over to Syria or China or Somalia...let me know how that works out for you....
I don't understand how folks can assume the gov't will be perfect all the time...folks like to cherry pick to make points...yeah, it's not perfect...but I'm damn happy to have roads, running water, police, social security, safer food, regulations to keep poisons out of toys, state parks...and lots of other things the gov't provides...
wow, i have never had anyone go through so many of my posts and pick every point apart before. it is a little creepy to be honest...but kind of flattering as well...congratulations for wasting so much of your time trying to convince me that i am the problem...
:roll:
Hell, look at it this way, at least someone actually read that novel you wrote, I skipped right over it.
I don't understand how folks can assume the gov't will be perfect all the time...folks like to cherry pick to make points...yeah, it's not perfect...but I'm damn happy to have roads, running water, police, social security, safer food, regulations to keep poisons out of toys, state parks...and lots of other things the gov't provides...
some folks will never be happy about anything...
I don't think that's a fair assessment of people that don't think the government should be getting any more taxes until it learns how to spend.
I could provide all those things you said to everyone if I could continually take more $ from others to pay for it. Providing those services AND balancing a budget is actual work. And as I said, I could easily be convinced to pay more in taxes if a balanced budget shows critical items would have to be cut,
I actually find it curious that the people that rail constantly on the military budget just want to throw more $ at the government. What do you think they will do with it?
you see, I find it ironic and disheartening that folks are so concerned about the top few percent...and think they can't cope with a tax rates returning to the clinton days...while at the same time thinking those on the bottom rung should pay more....I just don't get it...
You are right, you don't get it.
I certainly think everyone should have to pay something towards taxes. Obviously, for a lot of people this would be extremely minimal & for some it would still be 0, but I don't think 100% exemption is the correct message to send. BUt it is hardly about protecting the rich and asking the poor to pay more, it is more about holding the government responsible for their spending.
Why should we be ok with raising taxes before they actually balance a budget. Hell, it wouldn't even have to stay 100% balanced...I'm no idiot, things change, and you can re-look at it every quarter like most businesses do.
Raising the top tax rates on the richest Americans could go a long way toward balancing the federal budget. Mr. Saez estimated that raising the top tax rate on the top 1 percent of earners to 67 percent would raise about $4 trillion over a decade. That’s a start.
So, do you really think it's reasonable for someone, anyone to pay 67% of their earnings to the government? Does that really make sense?
wow, i have never had anyone go through so many of my posts and pick every point apart before. it is a little creepy to be honest...but kind of flattering as well...congratulations for wasting so much of your time trying to convince me that i am the problem...
:roll:
It's a message board. We were in a discussion. And your comment here pretty much sums up all of my points combined.
From what I've read - you come across as a blind partisan that doesn't want to discuss issues, you want to cheer and scream for your team - the Democratic party. To me - it's sad because this is not a "game". Both teams are complete losers. Watching this game is like watching the worst teams duke it out in a championship, when you know the better teams are sitting on the sidelines. It's sad.
I tried to inform you on this, but you continue to drone on in zombie-like MSNBC drivel with your foam "D" finger in hand. My point isn't to get under your skin, it's to point out that your behavior is no better than the Hannity or Rush drones that you despise. You seem to be engaged in such tunnel vision that you can't really see that.
I'm being sincere when I say - all I can do is read people's posts here and make judgements based on that. Although everyone who posts here would fall into a camp of some sort... most have caveats away here or there. There's only about three individuals who I would crown as complete and total partisans who post here regularly. Two are Ds, one is an R. You can make guesses on who's who if you wish. Out of all three, you may be the least open-minded, and that's saying something. I figured someone who is a musician, and seems down to earth outside this particular portion of the forum - wouldn't be so hard get a thought like that through... but, I was wrong.
Raising the top tax rates on the richest Americans could go a long way toward balancing the federal budget. Mr. Saez estimated that raising the top tax rate on the top 1 percent of earners to 67 percent would raise about $4 trillion over a decade. That’s a start.
So, do you really think it's reasonable for someone, anyone to pay 67% of their earnings to the government? Does that really make sense?
Even if they did this and assuming everyone in the top 1% didn't renounce their citizenship and bolt for another country ... we will still have an additional $8,500,000,000 debt over the next decade.
Also, we need to stop this "in ten years" bullshit that politicians spout out, no matter which side. That is the first indication of a lie. At most, they should say "in two years" ... but they won't because they will face an election and they don't want a lie on their record. And two years doesn't give enough "yeah, but" spin time.
Hey everyone, in ten years I'll have invented the hoverboard! ( I doubt anyone will PM me in ten years to call me out if I fail.)
Yes but:
1. They have loads of tax loops holes the rest of us do not.
I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. But, I do agree we should close loopholes. Here's the thing - there's a reason why loopholes exist. Similar to reasons why black markets exist. Bureaucracy leads to this sort of thing. Once you raises rates way above where they should be, black markets are created to get around them. If we simplified the tax code and instilled a flat tax, this would no longer be an issue in my opinion.
2. The jobs they create often pay poorly and those jobs are mostly intended to serve the wealthy. These "jobs" are often grunt work just above slavery.
Your stretching the truth here too. The jobs they create can be good paying jobs. Regardless, I have real issue with the idea that one doesn't have "choice" in accepting a job. If you don't like the pay - quit or find another job. Your dumbing yourself down if you compare "accepting a low-paying job offer" to "slavery". One there's a choice - the other there's not.
6.You mean your major concern is Debt/GDP. My biggest concern is depletion of natural resources, environmental degradation, climate change and tinnitus. (Notice how niftily I avoid being labeled a "pom pom waver". )
You're not a pom-pom waver, because you have an open-mind and talk ideas rather than political party talking points. You don't seem to be completely zombie-driven... but, hey... maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, back to the point- I disagree with you. I believe the largest concern is Debt/GDP right now because of how many people will be immediately impacted.
Comments
I love you "extra 4% is not that big" slogan you have working for you. Why don't you start donating an extra 4% to charities today?
but to get the cuts, the republicans have to agree to tax increases, thats why there hasn't been enough cuts yet, congress can't agree to a budget, mainly because the republicans don't want to upset their friends
It wasn't condescending. Or at least it wasn't meant that way. I was sincerely saying to you that if you're so begrudged that the wealthy don't pay their share, you might want to show them how it's done.
That’s awesome. Thanks for telling us. Anyways, you are the one who brought your income and now your job in to this, I did not.
Not sure that’s true or not. But, I am not someone who's saying how much I make nor am I saying that other people need to pay more as a percentage than I do. I am not asking for handouts. I am happy with my standing and if I wasn’t I would work on changing it.
I explained to you that perhaps you should spend your time doing something else if you're upset with your financial situation, rather than getting upset about people who make more than you do --- that was pretty much it.
Yeh, look into the term - inflation. Or, further, look into an organization called the Fed. Ask yourself - what is it that they do?
Doctors make a lot of money. I agree it doesn’t happen immediately, it takes time and effort.
From my understanding, the way to make more money isn't posting on rock band's message boards. Nor, in most cases, is it rocking out at night. That's not to say neither can't be fun or enjoyable. I do both. It's to say neither "tend" to pay well. Instead, something that would pay well is education. So, for example, if you were a political science major --- which you were right? --- that was probably not a great idea because they don't make any money in that field. Instead, maybe you could look into fields that pay well. Then go back to school in that area. You'd have to give up some of the stuff you like to do to do that though. If you don’t want to do that, that’s your choice. Don’t frown on those who did.
That kinda brings me to the "effort" part. How some of these smiley rich people may have actually made sacrifices to get themselves to the position they are in. How those doctors pay your salary, etc.
Just imagine telling a kid - "hey, there's no sense in studying. You're dumb. You'll always suck and be a low-life. " Basically, it seems you have the idea that no one can rise up.
I differ. I think everyone has choices. Some choose to medicine. Some choose to play sports. Some choose to study policial science in college. Some post on message boards. Some hunt for better jobs. Some view the world as half empty. Some as half full. That's pretty much it.
You don't have to be rich to be impressive in my eyes. I have much more respect for a janitor who is happy than a rich man who is not. That said, I don't see how that janitor could be happy if he always coveted what his neighbor had. Trying to confiscate it is even worse.
Everything you do here - boils down to party vs. party. Re-read your statements. It's kinda sick how twisted you've become in the game. It shows through when you use the labels. You don't talk ideas, you talk teams.
You don't have to agree with tax cuts, to not blindly support the Democratic party.
You’re so very hopeful aren’t you? Ha ha.. Anyway, I believe in people. I don't believe in government. Think about that in terms of the context of your statement.
I don't see any reason why people (who's lowest of the low form government) can't be as compassionate as government. In fact, I think they are.
This is one term that just bugs me. Hate? Are you f'ing serious?
There's two ways to look at this situation - equity vs. efficiency. You just don't get it – an honestly I don’t think you can. The other side believes growing the pie, not slicing it exactly equal, is the solution. If everyone makes 10% more next year - income inequality increases... but, EVERYONE is better off. Efficiency can make the poor have cell phones and TVs and heat and not die of starvation.
No, the military budget does not have to "be shrunk" before anything else gets cut. EVERYTHING can be cut at once.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Last election the GOP "pledged to America" to cut $100B from the budget (which doesn't amount to jack shit). They ended up settling on $38B ... but it was all window dressing and shell game tactics.
Nothing was cut.
The GOP's worst nightmare would be if they one the presidency, the house, and the senate. They would be called out by the Tea Party to create a balanced budget.
Like they could do that. :fp:
I compeltely agree with the bolded.... i would so get an unlimited bucket of popcorn and watch them explode :corn: having said that i think if they did manage to balance the budget without raising taxes they would face a long long long time until they where elected again
And I wasn't referencing taxes...
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
bravo, my good man...the poors making 20 grand a year should pay up...after all, what's a few hundred dollars to a poor person...perhaps they could cut back on luxuries like food and shelter...
the tents they make nowadays are simply smashing...and in my neighborhood we are simply ravaged by squirrels and feral cats...I wish someone would take care of those rodents...perhaps the poors could feed themselves and take care of this annoyance for me....
by jove, I do believe that is a bully of a idea... :angel:
the fact is, the modern conservative idea of government is a fallacy. it is an ideaology based on the selfish notion that everyone has to look out for themselves and fuck everybody else. it is "ME ME ME" vs, the "we" that we on the left believe in. did you know that ayn rand, the author of atlas shrugged, who ron paul bases his principles on, at age 65 got on social security and medicare, and when she died of cancer all of her bills were paid for by medicare and american taxpayers???? did you know that ron paul collects social security? those people benefit from it, why shouldn't everybody else? "i'm going to collect this money until i die, but kid, when you are my age, you are on your own ha ha ha..." the health care mandate was a republican idea that many of them voted for, until obama passed it in the affordable care act.... now they say it is unconstitutional.... romney was the architect of the affordable care act, mandate included, in massachusetts, now he is running on repealing his own fucking law. the hypocracy is astounding...
we can not cut everything and cut everybody's taxes. it is unsustainable. the money that the government does have should be used for things like infrastructure, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, education, etc. if not we are going to have to raise everybody's taxes to pay for the things that we absolutely have to have.
why do you think i am begrudging rich people when i want their taxes set at the clinton levels??? i am not jealous of rich people and i am not vindictive towards them. the fact is, the economy did better, the lower classes did better, and the rich even did better under the clinton tax rates. i am not asking for handouts for myself, but we live in a society here, and in the society i envision i look out for my neighbors and that means making sure they have affordable health care and that they have food to eat. if that makes me entitled, or demanding entitlements for my fellow americans, then guilty as charged. and with conservatives, why is the other side of the argument so reactionary and thrown to the completely opposite extreme??? i want the the rich to pay their share at the clinton rates, that does not mean i hate the rich... you don't think that classes need to pay different percentages, i do.
and yes, i am aware of inflation and i am aware of the fed. how is that audit going again???
and again, no, you don't know a fucking thing about me. i was not a political science major in undergrad, and i only took one political science course....in 11th grade.... my masters degree is in a completely different area, so i am no dummy as you appear to think that i am... and
so you are fine with republicans lying to the american people about how everybody can pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get rich? that happens in a few cases, but that is the exception. and you know that.
and again, another exampe of you going to the completely opposite extreme as in "Just imagine telling a kid - "hey, there's no sense in studying. You're dumb. You'll always suck and be a low-life. " Basically, it seems you have the idea that no one can rise up" i never ever said that. and i never advocated that. do not put words in my mouth, please and thanks... also where do you get the idea that i covet things from my neighbors??? i have bought want i want and i have what i want. i would not take anything that i could not afford from someone else.
you accuse me of boiling things down to party vs party. i am too liberal for the democrats, but they are the closest thing to my ideals and will look out for my interests more than the gop. you reference "teams". the fact is you have to have a team in this government. when is the last time one man was able to do anything in this system? one man is powerless, so he has to get a gang of people who believe in him. he can't afford to mount his own run for office, so he has to solicit money from people who believe in him. this is how political parties are formed. one man is powerless. 50 similar thinking men can be a force in this government. that is why i root for a team instead of a single man. you ron paul supporters might want to think about that...
and yes hate. hate is more prevalent in these politics than i can ever remember. why the opposition to gay marriage? why the opposition to the poor collecting benefits? why the opposition to anything obama has done? as i stated, a great nation can not improve itself when one half of the government is governing out of hate or spite???
and please answer me, when is the last time a republican has talked ideas? their only idea is to oppose every idea that obama has. that is it. plain and simple. it is easy to be the opposition candidate, just talk a bunch of shit about the incumbent and offer no ideas of your own. i know a lot of people who would be good at that...
you believe in people?? who??
if i took office tomorrow, the military budget has to be cut, and norquist needs to be run out of dc. that is my starting point. after that everything is on the table. even my beloved education, museums, and national parks.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This is in the Obama care Bill. I make barely 30,000 a year. My company gives me stock as a retirement plan with an option to have a 401k. I receive a dividend check yearly. This year I received about $500 after taxes which is going to help pay repairs to my 1996 Geo Prism. My Point is I am not rich and this Obama care is going to affect me. So the argument that the new taxes are only on the rich is incorrect. I can not afford to give more to our corrupt Government. They take enough out of my income already. What if the tax rate was 39.6% NOW....I would not have money to repair my car. This guy is hitting us all not just the rich.
How is anyone going to have affordable health care if they have no job? How are they going to Afford it? I and the company I work for pay for my insurance and I still can't afford health care. Does anyone know how much its going to cost or are people buying into this because they are using key word Affordable ?
You are on a roll with your new persona, despite not actually making any point or speaking to the posts you quote.
Is is to me!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
But seriously, please, take a moment and re-read the zombie nonsense you just wrote. I can’t even respond to this drivel. You make absolutely no sense here and you just don’t get it. Here’s why – both of these individuals do not believe the government handles money well. They’d prefer to handle their own money. They paid into the system because they are forced to do so. When they have the ability to extract funds out of the system of course they will. Why? Well, first, they don’t want that money in the system to begin with. Second, they feel it’s theirs.
Also, their point is the whole system is broken... you're basically siding with that point of view... I don't get it. I could care less about the pom-poms and cheerleading republican vs. democrat nonsense. As far as the healthcare act, I don’t care if it’s Romney or Obama or Democrats or Republicans…. I don’t like the mandate. It has nothing to do with parties. For some reason your responses always drone back into zombie political party lingo.
First, let’s understand something. We’re not “cutting” taxes. Taxes are as they are. They would be raised if the current policy that’s been in place since the last administration and for four years under the current administration is altered.
Second, yes, we can cut everything. There’s absolutely no reason we can’t cut everything. We could look at each department and cut it by X%.
I think you’re begrudging rich people because of your previous posts where you were begrudging rich people. You were complaining about how much you make and how much they make in a begrudging manner. I don’t agree with this point, but this is the first point where you’re logic actually makes sense. So, I won’t even go further. Congrats on these two sentences. But, see this is slightly insincere when you’re also asking for the rewards yourself – which you have in different form and mediums.
Moreover, why can’t you go to help at a shelter if you’re so concerned? Or set up a charity to help directly? Do you really believe the government doesn’t waste any of that money that’s supposed to be directed to these areas? Remember this is the same government that according to you pick the pocketed social security fund. I’m sure they wouldn’t do that elsewhere.
Classes do pay different percentages under the current system. The top 1% pay close to 40% of all income taxes. Those making over $250K pay about 50% of all taxes. We have a progressive system.
Well, when you complain about rising prices or not being able to afford x, y or z – keep that in mind. Look at the Money Supply. How has it changed recently? Who controls it?
All I know is you said you were a poly sci major. Futher, I know you were complaining about your wage. I offered advice. Simple answer – go to school at night like the hundreds of thousands of other adults who do.
I’m not fine with anyone lying to the American people ever. Parties, people or what have you. But, I don’t think the line you just uttered is a lie. In my opinion, an average person – if they work hard – can be successful. Further, if their sole goal is to “get rich”. I believe they can. My point back is – that’s not most people’s sole goal. Some want friends. Some want family. Some are lazy. Some want to focus on other areas – rock bands, posting on message boards, playing video games. It’s not easy. But, yet…. Can a person of average intelligence do it if that’s their sole goal? YES!
You are saying in the quote above (and said in more detail in the quote I was responding to) that you can’t pull yourself up and increase your wealth. You did advocate something similar. You are basically saying you CAN’T to the “poor” in one way or another.
I was speaking in hyperbole regarding a janitor. But, yes I do believe you covet things from your rich neighbors. You covet their wealth. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be bitching about increasing their taxes. So, this whole point here is pretty much BS.
Good for you, man. What you don’t understand is that you’re the tiniest of tiny pawns – your vote makes no difference whatsoever. In other words, in the grand scheme – you’re meaningless in the game that you love. Special interests rule politics and your beloved political party or team. But, keep your foam finger out if it makes you happy.
Ummm… ok. But, to clarify, you pretend that it’s one sided. It’s not. If there’s hate, it’s not one-sided. I don’t think government should be involved in marriage at all. But, I suppose there are some who agree or disagree with that policy. Does agree or disagree mean hate? Not sure I’ve seen this one first hand – but, if one sees an individual collecting a form of benefits when they are gaming the system (and are doing quite well) is that cause for alarm? Moreover, is saying that one believes they should be entitled to what they earn mean they hate everyone else? How about those who sincerely believe in the saying “give a man a fish – he’ll live for a day, teach a man to fish –he’ll live a lifetime”? And let’s just toss the pom-poms up one more time and scream “go team”! If the hate exists and you believe the hate is one sided, you’re a complete moron. You don’t think “spite or hate” come from both “teams”? Seriously, are you that deluded?
I don’t follow republicans closely, but I’m pretty sure there has been ideas suggested on both sides – Democrats or Republicans… it’s their zombie followers who just drone on in team format. For example, Obamacare is an idea, as was the Republican plan put forth by Paul Ryan. They are both “ideas” if that’s what you’re looking for.
You really seem to want to hop in the sack with a big letter D. Go at it man, I’m all for that tho. Enjoy it.
I believe in common people. As I stated earlier, I believe an average person can do a lot. If their goal is to become wealthy and they put in the effort, I believe they can do that.
But, what I meant here was I believe people will be charitable to those who are misfortunate. Unlike you, I don’t believe government is necessary in that process.
I am fine with cutting military budget and all other budgets.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
1) I. Don't like anyone's money being wasted
2) didn't they earn it?
3) I don't think $250,000/year is supper rich
4) to. Truely tax the "super rich" you don't tax incomes
Cut spending drastically and I will talk about tax raises.
I'll respond to this:
Couple things -
1) They already pay a higher share then those who make less
2) They are job creators, whether people want to admit that or not
3) Government is terribly inefficient. Further, and more importantly, they spend everything they make and much, much more. One way to constrain their incredibly irresponsible spending (republicans and democrats alike) is to constrain their income.
4) The line about the gap between the haves and have nots is total bullshit (at least recently)... the gap between the two has been closing since the recession:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/10/ ... oorer.html
5) Point 4 (where the recession is causing a closing gap) means that there's a tradeoff between efficiency (growth) and equity (decreasing the gap between the "haves and the have nots"). We're in a recession and that gap is falling, when we're not - it increases. As I've mentioned in other threads, someone making $300K vs. $30K.... each increase 10%... it's now $330 and $33. Gap increased. If incomes fall 10% ... $270 and $27.... gap narrowed. Simple math. I'd prefer "growth" to equity because the "poor" are better off, as are the rich, as am I.
6) Our major concern right now is Debt/GDP. Admittedly, raising taxes may help "debt" in the short run, but it will hurt GDP - taxes won't help production. Further, in the long run, the slowdown in GDP will hit the "debt" aspect.... it's lose-lose... and honestly, that's the reason Obama never did squat about these taxcuts even when Dems controlled congress. And, he won't. This is a political charade, that is being replayed four years later.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
:roll:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
any thoughts on this??
The Case for Raising Top Tax Rates
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/busin ... wanted=all
The wealthy are feeling defensive about their taxes. Most Americans may think the rich pay too little but, not surprisingly, only 30 percent of the rich agree. More than two-thirds of families earning a quarter of a million dollars a year or more tell Gallup’s pollsters that their taxes are too high.
It is true that high-income Americans carry the biggest tax burden. While fewer than 1 in 20 families make more than $200,000, they pay almost half of all federal taxes.
However they feel about the tax man, there is a case to be made that they can pay much more. The reason has nothing to do with fairness, justice or ideology. It is about economics and math.
The math is easy: the federal budget over the next decade cannot be made to square without raising a lot more money. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we stay on our current path, federal debt held by the public will grow from about two-thirds of gross domestic product today to roughly 100 percent in a decade and twice that much by 2040. It is unlikely that even the most committed Republicans could reverse the trend without higher taxes.
But an equally compelling reason relies on a new understanding of the economics of taxation. For 30 years, any proposal to raise taxes had to overcome an unshakable belief that higher taxes inevitably led to less growth. The belief survived the Clinton administration, when taxes rose and the economy surged. It survived George W. Bush’s administration, when taxes were cut yet growth sagged.
But now, a growing body of research suggests not only that the government could raise much more revenue by sharply raising the top tax rates paid by the richest Americans, but it could do so without slowing economic growth. Top tax rates could go as high as 80 percent or more.
Admittedly, it seems inconceivable that our political system could stomach a tax increase that big. Today, the richest 1 percent of Americans pay a top federal rate of 29 percent, according to Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. That’s because almost a third of their income derives from capital gains and dividends — which are taxed at a 15 percent rate — while the rest is ordinary income taxed at a top marginal rate of 35 percent.
Nonetheless, the research suggests there is much more money available to close the budget deficit than we previously thought, if only we were willing to raise tax rates to where they were back in the early ’70s, in the administration of Richard M. Nixon.
Taxpayers always want to pay less to the tax man. Still, there’s nothing inevitable about low taxes. In the early 1950s, coming out of World War II, the top federal income tax rate exceeded 90 percent. In 1980, the top marginal rate was 70 percent for families making more than $215,400 — about $587,000 in current dollars. And these families pocketed a much smaller share of the nation’s income than they do now. Today, people earning over $200,000 a year capture more than a third of national income.
How we got from that country to this one — where President Obama’s attempt to raise the top federal rate to 39.6 percent from 36 percent sets off partisan warfare — had less to do with changing beliefs about fairness than with politics. By the mid-1970s, the Republican Party concluded it was probably more effective to counter Democrats’ Big Government platform as the party of low taxes than as the party of budget discipline.
Economics helped them make their case. The sharp fall in tax rates that brought us to where we are today was buttressed by an economic proposition that has guided policy ever since: that raising taxes could backfire and harm the economy along the way.
Legend has it the idea entered the political mainstream during a meeting in Washington in 1974 in which the economist Arthur Laffer demonstrated the principle to Donald Rumsfeld, chief of staff to then-President Gerald Ford, and Dick Cheney, an assistant to the president. He drew a curve on a cocktail napkin — now known as the Laffer curve — to illustrate how tax revenues would increase less and less as tax rates rose until they reached a point where any future increase reduced the amount of money raised.
If taxes were too high, Mr. Laffer argued, people would come up with ways to avoid or evade them. They might postpone or cancel investments if the government were to tax away a large share of the rewards. They might work less, or put less effort into it. In this way, high taxes could reduce the total tax haul. More worryingly, this behavior would ultimately slow economic growth.
Economists today broadly accept this understanding of people’s actions. This belief has supported big declines in tax rates around the developed world, from Japan to Britain and the United States to Sweden.
But something got lost in the rush to cut: the proposition does not support low taxes all the time, for everybody and at all costs. While raising tax rates beyond a certain threshold can reduce tax revenue, we don’t know where the peak is. After decades of tax cuts, it is not unreasonable to think we are way below it. And though raising taxes will change taxpayers’ behaviors in a way that could reduce economic growth, we don’t know precisely how much. It turns out the impact of raising tax rates on the rich may be smaller than we thought.
The British went out of their way to shield income from the taxes after the Labour government raised the top income tax rate to 50 percent from 40 percent in 2010. High fliers asked for accelerated bonuses to get the money before the new tax rate went into effect. Then, they postponed income, hoping Labour would be kicked out of office. More than a thousand people moved to Switzerland.
This month, the new Liberal-Conservative government concluded that the tax increase had brought in too little new money and cut the top rate to 45 percent. Yet while the experience confirmed that taxpayers will do their best to avoid taxes, many of these tactics work only in the short term. Eventually, they’ll have to pay what they owe.
There are several studies that suggest top rates paid by high-income taxpayers above a certain threshold of earnings could be substantially higher. A study published last November by Mr. Saez and Peter Diamond, the economics Nobel laureate from M.I.T., made the biggest splash.
Their study suggested the federal government could raise the top marginal rate to 76 percent without losing revenue if it closed all the loopholes to prevent taxpayers from reclassifying income on their tax returns just to pay less. The top tax rate could rise to 48 percent even if we kept the loopholes we have today, they found.
Perhaps the most controversial conclusion, made by Mr. Saez and two colleagues in another study published last December, is that while the rich would respond to a big tax increase by shielding income from the tax man and maybe working less, this would not slow the economy at all. That’s because a lot of what the rich do does not, in fact, generate economic growth. So if they reduced their effort in response to higher taxes, the economy wouldn’t suffer.
These arguments are not the mainstream view. Some economists really dislike them. And they are not absolutely airtight. The calculations rely on estimates about how higher tax rates would discourage the rich from working or investing over a couple of years at most. But we know little about how they might affect long-term decisions, like whether to become a brain surgeon or a hedge fund manager. We do know that in countries with higher tax rates, like France, people work fewer hours than in the United States.
But the new line of research has the potential to overturn contemporary thinking about government finances. And in one respect, it seems indisputable: three decades of tax cuts may have gilded the pockets of the rich, but they didn’t provide much economic juice. Among developed nations, incomes per person grew no faster in countries like the United States and Britain that slashed their top tax rates than in countries like Spain, Germany or Denmark, which did not. If taxes didn’t juice the engine of growth on the way down, there is little reason to fear they will stall it on the way back up.
American tax politics have not changed. Republicans act as if cutting is the only legitimate thing to do with taxes. Their proposals to address the budget deficit thus rely on a mix of ambiguous commitments to close unspecified loopholes and the fairly radical assumption that voters won’t mind losing a big chunk of what the government does. And Republican arguments to the contrary, President Obama’s plan to raise $2.1 trillion in new taxes over the coming decade — mostly from high-income taxpayers — is comparatively modest.
Raising the top tax rates on the richest Americans could go a long way toward balancing the federal budget. Mr. Saez estimated that raising the top tax rate on the top 1 percent of earners to 67 percent would raise about $4 trillion over a decade. That’s a start.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yes but:
1. They have loads of tax loops holes the rest of us do not.
2. The jobs they create often pay poorly and those jobs are mostly intended to serve the wealthy. These "jobs" are often grunt work just above slavery.
3. Yes, the government is often inefficient but this has nothing to do with left or right so that one's a draw.
4. Really? I don't buy it. Statistics lie. I rely on what I know and see and hear.
5. Sorry if this sounds trite but, "Growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
6.You mean your major concern is Debt/GDP. My biggest concern is depletion of natural resources, environmental degradation, climate change and tinnitus. (Notice how niftily I avoid being labeled a "pom pom waver".
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
ha, thanks...it was fun...
I disagree about not addressing points...I did address points...you just don't agree with them...or maybe the big words threw you off...
you see, I find it ironic and disheartening that folks are so concerned about the top few percent...and think they can't cope with a tax rates returning to the clinton days...while at the same time thinking those on the bottom rung should pay more....I just don't get it...
all I hear is "spending is out of control" but "we can't raise taxes" however "we can't cut the military" but "let's cut education and health programs for women" and " because if we don't, china will take us over"...
but you never hear...."well, we fucked up and engaged in a war of choice and we are still in another war, both of which were unfunded and we gave everyone a tax cut but didn't figure out how to pay for them so I guess it's time to pay up"....no you don't hear that....all I read and see is bitching about everything but many folks are too f-n selfish to say "we'll we did run up these bills, I guess it's time to pay up"....it's not hard to understand and many know that I'm right...
anyhoo...folks can stick up for the rich and hate on the poors....that's fine...but that damn sure is not going fix anything...
a final note....I think all the bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire...I'm fine with paying more in taxes...I love this country and I'm ok with helping fund it...
I also love my house. But if I was doing a remodel and the contractor kept screwing up, I wouldn't be fine with paying for those screwups.
I know you're being facetious with this response...I assume you agree with the rest of my post...
this next part is a general comment...not toward you, JP...
and country of 300+ million is not the same as a single house...folks tend to operate in a bubble...they tend to think of only their house...they like to forget about the other millions of houses...
and I don't understand why folks hate the gov't so much...head on over to Syria or China or Somalia...let me know how that works out for you....
I don't understand how folks can assume the gov't will be perfect all the time...folks like to cherry pick to make points...yeah, it's not perfect...but I'm damn happy to have roads, running water, police, social security, safer food, regulations to keep poisons out of toys, state parks...and lots of other things the gov't provides...
some folks will never be happy about anything...
Hell, look at it this way, at least someone actually read that novel you wrote, I skipped right over it.
I don't think that's a fair assessment of people that don't think the government should be getting any more taxes until it learns how to spend.
I could provide all those things you said to everyone if I could continually take more $ from others to pay for it. Providing those services AND balancing a budget is actual work. And as I said, I could easily be convinced to pay more in taxes if a balanced budget shows critical items would have to be cut,
I actually find it curious that the people that rail constantly on the military budget just want to throw more $ at the government. What do you think they will do with it?
You are right, you don't get it.
I certainly think everyone should have to pay something towards taxes. Obviously, for a lot of people this would be extremely minimal & for some it would still be 0, but I don't think 100% exemption is the correct message to send. BUt it is hardly about protecting the rich and asking the poor to pay more, it is more about holding the government responsible for their spending.
Why should we be ok with raising taxes before they actually balance a budget. Hell, it wouldn't even have to stay 100% balanced...I'm no idiot, things change, and you can re-look at it every quarter like most businesses do.
So, do you really think it's reasonable for someone, anyone to pay 67% of their earnings to the government? Does that really make sense?
It's a message board. We were in a discussion. And your comment here pretty much sums up all of my points combined.
From what I've read - you come across as a blind partisan that doesn't want to discuss issues, you want to cheer and scream for your team - the Democratic party. To me - it's sad because this is not a "game". Both teams are complete losers. Watching this game is like watching the worst teams duke it out in a championship, when you know the better teams are sitting on the sidelines. It's sad.
I tried to inform you on this, but you continue to drone on in zombie-like MSNBC drivel with your foam "D" finger in hand. My point isn't to get under your skin, it's to point out that your behavior is no better than the Hannity or Rush drones that you despise. You seem to be engaged in such tunnel vision that you can't really see that.
I'm being sincere when I say - all I can do is read people's posts here and make judgements based on that. Although everyone who posts here would fall into a camp of some sort... most have caveats away here or there. There's only about three individuals who I would crown as complete and total partisans who post here regularly. Two are Ds, one is an R. You can make guesses on who's who if you wish. Out of all three, you may be the least open-minded, and that's saying something. I figured someone who is a musician, and seems down to earth outside this particular portion of the forum - wouldn't be so hard get a thought like that through... but, I was wrong.
So, fair enough. Enjoy the game.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Also, we need to stop this "in ten years" bullshit that politicians spout out, no matter which side. That is the first indication of a lie. At most, they should say "in two years" ... but they won't because they will face an election and they don't want a lie on their record. And two years doesn't give enough "yeah, but" spin time.
Hey everyone, in ten years I'll have invented the hoverboard! ( I doubt anyone will PM me in ten years to call me out if I fail.)
Your stretching the truth here too. The jobs they create can be good paying jobs. Regardless, I have real issue with the idea that one doesn't have "choice" in accepting a job. If you don't like the pay - quit or find another job. Your dumbing yourself down if you compare "accepting a low-paying job offer" to "slavery". One there's a choice - the other there's not.
I don't understand this comment.
Yes, really. Maybe you should read or hear something that's not liberally-slanted. Those are real statistics. Ok. So, you admit, you'd like the economy to shrink? You're not a pom-pom waver, because you have an open-mind and talk ideas rather than political party talking points. You don't seem to be completely zombie-driven... but, hey... maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, back to the point- I disagree with you. I believe the largest concern is Debt/GDP right now because of how many people will be immediately impacted.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="