Why doesn't the federal gov't just take it all? and then give back what they don't need.
can anyone tell me why we have states?
Gimmie, Nothing wrong with taking the money that was promised to you after it was forcefully taken from you to begin with. Sorry you cannot balance that in your heavily left skewed thought process. You and I both know that if I told you to give me 4% of your salary for the next 50 years with the promise of it back, you wouldn't be ok with 75% of that total that hasn't been adjusted for inflation. Give the chance to opt out...if it is a good deal people will use it. You can fund people on disability and the poor elderly through a payroll tax to employers...individuals should be given the option to participate, if they choose to opt out 1% can be taken for the same purpose as the tax above, as an insurance policy in case those that opt out ever need some form of gov't assistance. Although I would say the people who opt out should be treated much differently than those who didn't, to the point of having to work for their SS checks. I don't agree with the idea of the feds needing to do it, but I believe social security would still be used by most of the public as a retirement account for those who aren't in a position that provides one.
Tax the top 1% more. Tax them more and more and more. Who cares, no one here is in it...I mean, why don't we take all of someone else's money?...The further we move from a republic the closer we are to this reality.
again, can anyone tell me why we have states?
does anyone think that the income tax rate is really going to generate any revenue amount that matters?...without tax code revision and change, there will still be plenty of ways to keep from paying the taxes...and until the feds learn how to spend responsibly they will always be asking for more and more and more and more and more...
We just got hit with a tax for not having insurance...can't wait to see what they drum up next
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
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.
family of 4 in New York City on 250,000 a year is VERY different from a small town in a rural area...people never seem to take into account the taxes from states and local governments that never seem to be factored in when talking about "a few more percent"
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
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.
I guess I don't get it...perhaps you're right, make the poors pay up, that will balance the budget...that's all you have I see...fine...let's go that route...
it is funny how folks who cheer-lead for the the war in Irak don't want to pay up...it's funny that folks seem to assume the budget can be balanced over-night...and I'm the one who doesn't get it...
and tell me how to balance the budget again...? those spending cuts you want, will that do it...? gov't spending is at it's lowest in decades...taxes are at the lowest rates in decades...that seems to be working out...go ahead and keep cutting...make this country great...
let's say the do balance the budget...for some reason, I think you'd find a reason to be against tax increases...
let me ask you this, my friend: if the tax increases balanced the budget, would you support the increases?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
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.
I don't agree with all you points here, inlet, but they're well put so fair enough. I do take issue with one comment though. You say I'm not completely zombie driven but I would argue that today I am. It's too friggin zombie inducing hot ... which takes us back to my concern about climate change.... but that's another story.
Seriously though, I don't see that a lot of people have a choice about jobs. The choice you mention often comes down to having a shitty job or no job. Some of us are lucky. I love my job even though the pay sucks but I'm not a big consumer so that's ok. I was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time to do what I do. And before my hearing issues I was a teacher and even though that did not pay well where I worked it was good work which I was able to procure because I had received my college degree at a time when college was very affordable. That's not so today- which is why a lot of younger people are having a hard time getting started. So I consider myself lucky and have worked hard to get where I am (and have been). But despite all my hard work and luck I have never made more than $20 an hour and make less than that today. I'm not complaining about my lot in life but trying to explain why I believe there is inequity for those who have it worse of than I do- those who have shitty or low paying jobs or no job at all. Wealth in this country is not equally distributed according to effort, value of the work done or even education level. It is distributed mostly to the very aggressive "A" type personalities. We reward the most rapacious, not necessarily the most intelligent or caring or creative.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
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?
"learns how to spend"...tell me more about that subjective concept...should that be defined by your terms or someone else's ....? you see, you seem to get caught up in subjective notions that have no real answer...
I'm looking at this concretely...there are bills that need paid...let's pay them...
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.
I guess I don't get it...perhaps you're right, make the poors pay up, that will balance the budget...that's all you have I see...fine...let's go that route...
it is funny how folks who cheer-lead for the the war in Irak don't want to pay up...it's funny that folks seem to assume the budget can be balanced over-night...and I'm the one who doesn't get it...
and tell me how to balance the budget again...? those spending cuts you want, will that do it...? gov't spending is at it's lowest in decades...taxes are at the lowest rates in decades...that seems to be working out...go ahead and keep cutting...make this country great...
let's say the do balance the budget...for some reason, I think you'd find a reason to be against tax increases...
let me ask you this, my friend: if the tax increases balanced the budget, would you support the increases?
I would not expect them to balance the budget in a year. I would expect to see them to make a large cut to the existing budget that shows the can cut spending and show proof that several years down the road perhaps they can. But they can't.
What they can do is take our money on year one. But hey, in ten years .... :fp:
And to answer your above question, no. Per Gimmi, if the top 1% are taxed 67%, that would only bring in 400,000,000. Which is only 1/3 of the annual deficit.
I guess I don't get it...perhaps you're right, make the poors pay up, that will balance the budget...that's all you have I see...fine...let's go that route...
it is funny how folks who cheer-lead for the the war in Irak don't want to pay up...it's funny that folks seem to assume the budget can be balanced over-night...and I'm the one who doesn't get it...
and tell me how to balance the budget again...? those spending cuts you want, will that do it...? gov't spending is at it's lowest in decades...taxes are at the lowest rates in decades...that seems to be working out...go ahead and keep cutting...make this country great...
let's say the do balance the budget...for some reason, I think you'd find a reason to be against tax increases...
let me ask you this, my friend: if the tax increases balanced the budget, would you support the increases?
I would not expect them to balance the budget in a year. I would expect to see them to make a large cut to the existing budget that shows the can cut spending and show proof that several years down the road perhaps they can. But they can't.
What they can do is take our money on year one. But hey, in ten years .... :fp:
And to answer your above question, no. Per Gimmi, if the top 1% are taxed 67%, that would only bring in 400,000,000. Which is only 1/3 of the annual deficit.
only bring in 400,000,000...yeah, that's terrible... thus, I support allowing all the bush tax cuts to expire...desperate times mean desperate measures...
I'm glad you're expectations are reasonable, though...some do think things should happen yesterday...
out of curiosity, how large of spending cut would make you happy...?
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.
So, fair enough. Enjoy the game.
fair enough i will take that under advisement......
:roll:
whatever dude.
i know this will break your heart, but your opinion of me means nothing, and i am not ammending my beliefs to fit yours and whatever you type to me on here means nothing. i am actually having a laugh at your posts to me right now...
by the way, what makes you think that because i am a musicain that my views would or should fall somewhere to the right of the spectrum? the music i listen to does not, the music that inspired me did not, what i compose does not, so why would i write about anything from your equally slanted perpective?
and by the way, discuss the topic, not me. please and thanks. and if you want to talk smack to me do it off of the forum.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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?
back after world war II it was at about 90% for the richest. why not?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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.
I don't agree with all you points here, inlet, but they're well put so fair enough. I do take issue with one comment though. You say I'm not completely zombie driven but I would argue that today I am. It's too friggin zombie inducing hot ... which takes us back to my concern about climate change.... but that's another story.
Seriously though, I don't see that a lot of people have a choice about jobs. The choice you mention often comes down to having a shitty job or no job. Some of us are lucky. I love my job even though the pay sucks but I'm not a big consumer so that's ok. I was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time to do what I do. And before my hearing issues I was a teacher and even though that did not pay well where I worked it was good work which I was able to procure because I had received my college degree at a time when college was very affordable. That's not so today- which is why a lot of younger people are having a hard time getting started. So I consider myself lucky and have worked hard to get where I am (and have been). But despite all my hard work and luck I have never made more than $20 an hour and make less than that today. I'm not complaining about my lot in life but trying to explain why I believe there is inequity for those who have it worse of than I do- those who have shitty or low paying jobs or no job at all. Wealth in this country is not equally distributed according to effort, value of the work done or even education level. It is distributed mostly to the very aggressive "A" type personalities. We reward the most rapacious, not necessarily the most intelligent or caring or creative.
The second paragraph can be true. But, sometimes people have to take the shitty job. I think it's a societal thing where many of us believe we are "above" certain jobs. My parents taught me well. I took the shitty jobs at a young age. I learned the value on money. Truth be told, work is not always easy and not always fun. Sometimes, it takes sacrifice and the right attitude to move up the ladder into a job one can enjoy.
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.)
combined with across the board spending cuts, where are you getting your $8.5 trillion figure?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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.
shocker
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
fair enough i will take that under advisement......
:roll:
whatever dude.
i know this will break your heart, but your opinion of me means nothing, and i am not ammending my beliefs to fit yours and whatever you type to me on here means nothing. i am actually having a laugh at your posts to me right now...
Ok. I don't expect anyone to "amend" their beliefs to fit mine. I simply hope to get them to look in the mirror now and then, to ensure their not zombie-like MSNBC drones, that's all.
by the way, what makes you think that because i am a musicain that my views would or should fall somewhere to the right of the spectrum? the music i listen to does not, the music that inspired me did not, what i compose does not, so why would i write about anything from your equally slanted perpective?
:fp: Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? What you said here has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
On another note, spelling mistakes are common around here, and I get that and why it happens. I've been known to make several. But, it's really frequent in your posts - maybe try the spell check on occasion? The consistent spelling mistakes are tough to sort through and don't help your case.
and by the way, discuss the topic, not me. please and thanks. and if you want to talk smack to me do it off of the forum.
I'm not talking "smack" on you and I was simply reading the topic when I came across your post. So, the topic is on class warfare. In that post - you brought yourself into discussion when you were complaining about your salary, relative to a more wealthy individuals. I thought to myself - "waaah - this guy is at it again with his whoa is me routine". So, this was within a thread on class warfare, where you're taking the side of increasing taxes on the wealthy. I responded - I simply said that having 9,000 posts on a rock bands message board probably isn't helping your cause to increase your salary. I explained maybe if you put in more effort you could increase your salary. You went on to say how well you're doing in other areas and how you would never covet your neighbor's wealth. But, then you go on to say how they should pay more in taxes. The fact that you don't understand how inconsistent you sound is quite simply sad. But, you're right, there's no use in going further discussing this with one another.
Fascinating read, and some really excellent points made throughout.
It got me thinking about Oprah Winfrey.
I'm not necessarily a fan of hers, but I appreciate how she's earned pretty much every cent of her wealth. Has created jobs - pretty good ones, I'd imagine - for her "empire". I read awhile back how she has this hugeass estate - in Santa Barbara, I believe - the kind of who-the-fuck-could-live-here type of property. But then I thought, she has to employ many people to run and maintain the place - again, not shitty positions (then again, who hasn't had to do menial work now and then? I have - still do sometimes).
It's crazy to me that anyone who's worked their ass off and succeeded financially should be demonized or penalized because others either haven't made the effort or simply haven't had the same lot in life.
Life isn't fair!
Still, I WANT my neighbor (general sense) to do well in life as much as I want it for myself. And if my neighbor comes out in a better place, I'm not going to demand a slice of his pie. It doesn't taste near as sweet as one I've made for myself.
I believe this should go both ways.
(hope that made sense; I'm still in thought-collecting mode this morning)
The National Association of REALTORS is all over this and working to get it repealed, before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many REALTORS do you think will vote Democratic in 2012?
Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill and goes into effect in 2013.
Why 2013? Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012 elections? So, this is "change you can believe in"? Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax.
If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.
This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November and 2012 vote more important?
let me ask you this, my friend: if the tax increases balanced the budget, would you support the increases?
Ummm, of course tax increases would balance the budget, they could just take 100% from everyone...I'm not sure I understand your question.
Plus, you continue to say I think the poor need tax increases and that will solve everything...I'v never said that, hence why I don't think you get it.
surprising that Galbraith would say something like that. I am just shocked.
Good thing there is nothing modern about my conservatism. (wait...that doesn't sound good)
So let's sum up this thread for those who don't want to read it all
Republicans are selfish assholes who only want rich people to keep the money even though most aren't rich for some reason
Democrats don't and won't get it in regards to the idea that some may just want a smaller federal government that does less, forcing state and local governments, or local communities of people to do more...
Republicans want the budget balanced without raising taxes even though most have very little interest real interest in cutting spending either.
No one can tell me what someone's fair share actually is.
Ali and Frazier post in here under pseudonyms
Anything i am missing?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
Fascinating read, and some really excellent points made throughout.
It got me thinking about Oprah Winfrey.
I'm not necessarily a fan of hers, but I appreciate how she's earned pretty much every cent of her wealth. Has created jobs - pretty good ones, I'd imagine - for her "empire". I read awhile back how she has this hugeass estate - in Santa Barbara, I believe - the kind of who-the-fuck-could-live-here type of property. But then I thought, she has to employ many people to run and maintain the place - again, not shitty positions (then again, who hasn't had to do menial work now and then? I have - still do sometimes).
It's crazy to me that anyone who's worked their ass off and succeeded financially should be demonized or penalized because others either haven't made the effort or simply haven't had the same lot in life.
Life isn't fair!
Still, I WANT my neighbor (general sense) to do well in life as much as I want it for myself. And if my neighbor comes out in a better place, I'm not going to demand a slice of his pie. It doesn't taste near as sweet as one I've made for myself.
I believe this should go both ways.
(hope that made sense; I'm still in thought-collecting mode this morning)
Hedonist, I agree to a point what both you and inlet have said- yes, most of us have had to do menial work... and probably should. It's humbling and why shouldn't we all share the grunt work? And yes, some of the Horacio Alger Story types had to work their way up from scum bucket work to the top. But to believe everyone can do that is just not so. That's particularly true of creative, right-brained people. And many at the top have not done their fair share of hard work and many are just flat out greedy. I'm not saying all rich people are bad. Not at all. Some of the people I personally know and respect the most make two, three, even four times what I make and one of the reasons I respect them is that they have not problem giving back. And not to sound my own horn, but I tithe 10% of my less-than-average income to people who do good work that I can't do. So, yes, I believe there is inequity and the wealth should be spread around more than it is.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
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.
what's your definition of "drastically"...?
What's the current $ spent vs. revenue?
Honestly it would take me some tiime to figure out the exact % spending cut vs tax increase I'd like to see.
"learns how to spend"...tell me more about that subjective concept...should that be defined by your terms or someone else's ....? you see, you seem to get caught up in subjective notions that have no real answer...
I'm looking at this concretely...there are bills that need paid...let's pay them...
Learns how to spend ... pretty easy, don't spend more than you make.
Hedonist, I agree to a point what both you and inlet have said- yes, most of us have had to do menial work... and probably should. It's humbling and why shouldn't we all share the grunt work? And yes, some of the Horacio Alger Story types had to work their way up from scum bucket work to the top. But to believe everyone can do that is just not so. That's particularly true of creative, right-brained people. And many at the top have not done their fair share of hard work and many are just flat out greedy. I'm not saying all rich people are bad. Not at all. Some of the people I personally know and respect the most make two, three, even four times what I make and one of the reasons I respect them is that they have not problem giving back. And not to sound my own horn, but I tithe 10% of my less-than-average income to people who do good work that I can't do. So, yes, I believe there is inequity and the wealth should be spread around more than it is.
But see, brian...while I applaud your tithing (and similarly do/give as I can), I don't feel it's a "should" type of thing - at least, not something that should be mandated by anyone or anything but our own conscience. So what if someone makes a shitload and chooses not to donate any of it? I may think "how can you not?" but in the end, it is - should be - their choice.
And I do agree with you on the greed aspect, although I don't believe that that quality is limited to the wealthy. All walks of folks have the greedy among them. For as many who abuse their affluence, there are those who abuse their assistance (for lack of a better word). It doesn't make either group greedy in their entirety.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
Hedonist, I agree to a point what both you and inlet have said- yes, most of us have had to do menial work... and probably should. It's humbling and why shouldn't we all share the grunt work? And yes, some of the Horacio Alger Story types had to work their way up from scum bucket work to the top. But to believe everyone can do that is just not so. That's particularly true of creative, right-brained people. And many at the top have not done their fair share of hard work and many are just flat out greedy. I'm not saying all rich people are bad. Not at all. Some of the people I personally know and respect the most make two, three, even four times what I make and one of the reasons I respect them is that they have not problem giving back. And not to sound my own horn, but I tithe 10% of my less-than-average income to people who do good work that I can't do. So, yes, I believe there is inequity and the wealth should be spread around more than it is.
But see, brian...while I applaud your tithing (and similarly do/give as I can), I don't feel it's a "should" type of thing - at least, not something that should be mandated by anyone or anything but our own conscience. So what if someone makes a shitload and chooses not to donate any of it? I may think "how can you not?" but in the end, it is - should be - their choice.
And I do agree with you on the greed aspect, although I don't believe that that quality is limited to the wealthy. All walks of folks have the greedy among them. For as many who abuse their affluence, there are those who abuse their assistance (for lack of a better word). It doesn't make either group greedy in their entirety.
I have not arguments with any of your points, Hedonist, but only questions:
If not by mandate, how do we make compensation more fair, especially for underpaid creative people, those who are less advantaged by circumstance, and those who work the hardest for the least? Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh, well, life is unfair, too bad so sad?" I know you don't think that way and I know you are intelligent and caring so I put the burden to solve these dilemmas on you!
Just kidding but, seriously, what to do?
Auggh- this is a great debate going on but I have grunt work to do!!
Back later.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
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.
what's your definition of "drastically"...?
What's the current $ spent vs. revenue?
Honestly it would take me some tiime to figure out the exact % spending cut vs tax increase I'd like to see.
I appreciate your honesty, however, if you can't define it...how can you advocate for it... :?:
i know where i am from you pay 20 percent on the first €40000 and then earned after that you pay 41 percent on(these are just basic figures, you actually pay more because their is employment insurance and other things going on as well),
so for example if i was earning €80000 i would pay pay 40000*20% (8000) + 40000*41% (16400) so my total tax would 24400.
in the states is it the same or is it what ever band you are in you pay that on the whole of your income
"learns how to spend"...tell me more about that subjective concept...should that be defined by your terms or someone else's ....? you see, you seem to get caught up in subjective notions that have no real answer...
I'm looking at this concretely...there are bills that need paid...let's pay them...
Learns how to spend ... pretty easy, don't spend more than you make.
sounds super easy...where's that damn red button when you need it...
too bad this notion was in place during the bush years and when the drums were beating for the Irak war...or when the bush tax cuts were in place...oh well, time to pay up...let's cut medicaid...
Honestly it would take me some tiime to figure out the exact % spending cut vs tax increase I'd like to see.
I appreciate your honesty, however, if you can't define it...how can you advocate for it... :?:
Are you advocating 100% balanced budget through tax increases only?
My point being if you want specific amounts cut from specific programs, entitlements, etc that will take some work...I don;t have all the information, but their are people that do. Namely your congressmen and women and the president.
Honestly, I'd like to see what cuts would result in a balanced budget with no new revenue. Then add back entitlements, paid for by tax increases for those that are a necessity.
sounds super easy...where's that damn red button when you need it...
too bad this notion was in place during the bush years and when the drums were beating for the Irak war...or when the bush tax cuts were in place...oh well, time to pay up...let's cut medicaid...
So does raising taxes to keep paying for more and more and more....
You have a point with GW and the wars. A very good one.
sounds super easy...where's that damn red button when you need it...
too bad this notion was in place during the bush years and when the drums were beating for the Irak war...or when the bush tax cuts were in place...oh well, time to pay up...let's cut medicaid...
So does raising taxes to keep paying for more and more and more....
You have a point with GW and the wars. A very good one.
In fairness he isn't advocating that we balance the budget through tax increases alone or we keep raising taxes to pay for more and more,
i think everyone here is talking in the contexts of a massive debt reduction
Comments
can anyone tell me why we have states?
Gimmie, Nothing wrong with taking the money that was promised to you after it was forcefully taken from you to begin with. Sorry you cannot balance that in your heavily left skewed thought process. You and I both know that if I told you to give me 4% of your salary for the next 50 years with the promise of it back, you wouldn't be ok with 75% of that total that hasn't been adjusted for inflation. Give the chance to opt out...if it is a good deal people will use it. You can fund people on disability and the poor elderly through a payroll tax to employers...individuals should be given the option to participate, if they choose to opt out 1% can be taken for the same purpose as the tax above, as an insurance policy in case those that opt out ever need some form of gov't assistance. Although I would say the people who opt out should be treated much differently than those who didn't, to the point of having to work for their SS checks. I don't agree with the idea of the feds needing to do it, but I believe social security would still be used by most of the public as a retirement account for those who aren't in a position that provides one.
Tax the top 1% more. Tax them more and more and more. Who cares, no one here is in it...I mean, why don't we take all of someone else's money?...The further we move from a republic the closer we are to this reality.
again, can anyone tell me why we have states?
does anyone think that the income tax rate is really going to generate any revenue amount that matters?...without tax code revision and change, there will still be plenty of ways to keep from paying the taxes...and until the feds learn how to spend responsibly they will always be asking for more and more and more and more and more...
We just got hit with a tax for not having insurance...can't wait to see what they drum up next
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
family of 4 in New York City on 250,000 a year is VERY different from a small town in a rural area...people never seem to take into account the taxes from states and local governments that never seem to be factored in when talking about "a few more percent"
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I guess I don't get it...perhaps you're right, make the poors pay up, that will balance the budget...that's all you have I see...fine...let's go that route...
it is funny how folks who cheer-lead for the the war in Irak don't want to pay up...it's funny that folks seem to assume the budget can be balanced over-night...and I'm the one who doesn't get it...
and tell me how to balance the budget again...? those spending cuts you want, will that do it...? gov't spending is at it's lowest in decades...taxes are at the lowest rates in decades...that seems to be working out...go ahead and keep cutting...make this country great...
let's say the do balance the budget...for some reason, I think you'd find a reason to be against tax increases...
let me ask you this, my friend: if the tax increases balanced the budget, would you support the increases?
I don't agree with all you points here, inlet, but they're well put so fair enough. I do take issue with one comment though. You say I'm not completely zombie driven but I would argue that today I am. It's too friggin zombie inducing hot
Seriously though, I don't see that a lot of people have a choice about jobs. The choice you mention often comes down to having a shitty job or no job. Some of us are lucky. I love my job even though the pay sucks but I'm not a big consumer so that's ok. I was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time to do what I do. And before my hearing issues I was a teacher and even though that did not pay well where I worked it was good work which I was able to procure because I had received my college degree at a time when college was very affordable. That's not so today- which is why a lot of younger people are having a hard time getting started. So I consider myself lucky and have worked hard to get where I am (and have been). But despite all my hard work and luck I have never made more than $20 an hour and make less than that today. I'm not complaining about my lot in life but trying to explain why I believe there is inequity for those who have it worse of than I do- those who have shitty or low paying jobs or no job at all. Wealth in this country is not equally distributed according to effort, value of the work done or even education level. It is distributed mostly to the very aggressive "A" type personalities. We reward the most rapacious, not necessarily the most intelligent or caring or creative.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"learns how to spend"...tell me more about that subjective concept...should that be defined by your terms or someone else's ....? you see, you seem to get caught up in subjective notions that have no real answer...
I'm looking at this concretely...there are bills that need paid...let's pay them...
what's your definition of "drastically"...?
What they can do is take our money on year one. But hey, in ten years .... :fp:
And to answer your above question, no. Per Gimmi, if the top 1% are taxed 67%, that would only bring in 400,000,000. Which is only 1/3 of the annual deficit.
only bring in 400,000,000...yeah, that's terrible...
I'm glad you're expectations are reasonable, though...some do think things should happen yesterday...
out of curiosity, how large of spending cut would make you happy...?
:roll:
whatever dude.
i know this will break your heart, but your opinion of me means nothing, and i am not ammending my beliefs to fit yours and whatever you type to me on here means nothing. i am actually having a laugh at your posts to me right now...
by the way, what makes you think that because i am a musicain that my views would or should fall somewhere to the right of the spectrum? the music i listen to does not, the music that inspired me did not, what i compose does not, so why would i write about anything from your equally slanted perpective?
and by the way, discuss the topic, not me. please and thanks. and if you want to talk smack to me do it off of the forum.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The second paragraph can be true. But, sometimes people have to take the shitty job. I think it's a societal thing where many of us believe we are "above" certain jobs. My parents taught me well. I took the shitty jobs at a young age. I learned the value on money. Truth be told, work is not always easy and not always fun. Sometimes, it takes sacrifice and the right attitude to move up the ladder into a job one can enjoy.
As for your latter points, on college education costs and just wages in general, I seriously come back to the Fed. The Fed has made money cheaper. Look at 1970 in the following chart:
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=BlK&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1920&bih=949&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=KZRWqJ3Emep6EM:&imgrefurl=http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1185375660.php&docid=lM7Fp24np5iZ1M&imgurl=http://goldseek.com/news/GoldSeek/2007/7-24mh/4.gif&w=470&h=474&ei=Lpz9T-DUBMPe0QG6nviFBw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=691&sig=107322504463845542699&page=1&tbnh=120&tbnw=119&start=0&ndsp=47&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:129&tx=41&ty=60
What happened then? Umm... well, we officially went off the gold standard.
I typically use single-income households as my gauge. In my opinion, it's much more difficult now to live on one income with moderate means than it was 50+ years ago. I think the move for more women to enter the workforce over the past 50 years, may have also played a part, however. I feel the Fed is to blame. Whenever I hear anyone complain about prices or wages or basically COST OF LIVING - they should think Monetary Policy.
<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="
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Ok. I don't expect anyone to "amend" their beliefs to fit mine. I simply hope to get them to look in the mirror now and then, to ensure their not zombie-like MSNBC drones, that's all.
:fp: Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? What you said here has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
On another note, spelling mistakes are common around here, and I get that and why it happens. I've been known to make several. But, it's really frequent in your posts - maybe try the spell check on occasion? The consistent spelling mistakes are tough to sort through and don't help your case.
I'm not talking "smack" on you and I was simply reading the topic when I came across your post. So, the topic is on class warfare. In that post - you brought yourself into discussion when you were complaining about your salary, relative to a more wealthy individuals. I thought to myself - "waaah - this guy is at it again with his whoa is me routine". So, this was within a thread on class warfare, where you're taking the side of increasing taxes on the wealthy. I responded - I simply said that having 9,000 posts on a rock bands message board probably isn't helping your cause to increase your salary. I explained maybe if you put in more effort you could increase your salary. You went on to say how well you're doing in other areas and how you would never covet your neighbor's wealth. But, then you go on to say how they should pay more in taxes. The fact that you don't understand how inconsistent you sound is quite simply sad. But, you're right, there's no use in going further discussing this with one another.
<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="
It got me thinking about Oprah Winfrey.
I'm not necessarily a fan of hers, but I appreciate how she's earned pretty much every cent of her wealth. Has created jobs - pretty good ones, I'd imagine - for her "empire". I read awhile back how she has this hugeass estate - in Santa Barbara, I believe - the kind of who-the-fuck-could-live-here type of property. But then I thought, she has to employ many people to run and maintain the place - again, not shitty positions (then again, who hasn't had to do menial work now and then? I have - still do sometimes).
It's crazy to me that anyone who's worked their ass off and succeeded financially should be demonized or penalized because others either haven't made the effort or simply haven't had the same lot in life.
Life isn't fair!
Still, I WANT my neighbor (general sense) to do well in life as much as I want it for myself. And if my neighbor comes out in a better place, I'm not going to demand a slice of his pie. It doesn't taste near as sweet as one I've made for myself.
I believe this should go both ways.
(hope that made sense; I'm still in thought-collecting mode this morning)
Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill and goes into effect in 2013.
Why 2013? Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012 elections? So, this is "change you can believe in"? Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax.
If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.
This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November and 2012 vote more important?
Oh, you weren't aware this was in the Obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren't alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren't aware of it [url=eitherhttp://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home]eitherhttp://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/ ... taxes-home[/url]<http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home http://www.gop/. gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home>
what do think of this ?
Godfather.
Ummm, of course tax increases would balance the budget, they could just take 100% from everyone...I'm not sure I understand your question.
Plus, you continue to say I think the poor need tax increases and that will solve everything...I'v never said that, hence why I don't think you get it.
surprising that Galbraith would say something like that. I am just shocked.
Good thing there is nothing modern about my conservatism.
So let's sum up this thread for those who don't want to read it all
Republicans are selfish assholes who only want rich people to keep the money even though most aren't rich for some reason
Democrats don't and won't get it in regards to the idea that some may just want a smaller federal government that does less, forcing state and local governments, or local communities of people to do more...
Republicans want the budget balanced without raising taxes even though most have very little interest real interest in cutting spending either.
No one can tell me what someone's fair share actually is.
Ali and Frazier post in here under pseudonyms
Anything i am missing?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Hedonist, I agree to a point what both you and inlet have said- yes, most of us have had to do menial work... and probably should. It's humbling and why shouldn't we all share the grunt work? And yes, some of the Horacio Alger Story types had to work their way up from scum bucket work to the top. But to believe everyone can do that is just not so. That's particularly true of creative, right-brained people. And many at the top have not done their fair share of hard work and many are just flat out greedy. I'm not saying all rich people are bad. Not at all. Some of the people I personally know and respect the most make two, three, even four times what I make and one of the reasons I respect them is that they have not problem giving back. And not to sound my own horn, but I tithe 10% of my less-than-average income to people who do good work that I can't do. So, yes, I believe there is inequity and the wealth should be spread around more than it is.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
What's the current $ spent vs. revenue?
Honestly it would take me some tiime to figure out the exact % spending cut vs tax increase I'd like to see.
Learns how to spend ... pretty easy, don't spend more than you make.
And I do agree with you on the greed aspect, although I don't believe that that quality is limited to the wealthy. All walks of folks have the greedy among them. For as many who abuse their affluence, there are those who abuse their assistance (for lack of a better word). It doesn't make either group greedy in their entirety.
I have not arguments with any of your points, Hedonist, but only questions:
If not by mandate, how do we make compensation more fair, especially for underpaid creative people, those who are less advantaged by circumstance, and those who work the hardest for the least? Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh, well, life is unfair, too bad so sad?" I know you don't think that way and I know you are intelligent and caring so I put the burden to solve these dilemmas on you!
Just kidding but, seriously, what to do?
Auggh- this is a great debate going on but I have grunt work to do!!
Back later.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I appreciate your honesty, however, if you can't define it...how can you advocate for it... :?:
i know where i am from you pay 20 percent on the first €40000 and then earned after that you pay 41 percent on(these are just basic figures, you actually pay more because their is employment insurance and other things going on as well),
so for example if i was earning €80000 i would pay pay 40000*20% (8000) + 40000*41% (16400) so my total tax would 24400.
in the states is it the same or is it what ever band you are in you pay that on the whole of your income
sounds super easy...where's that damn red button when you need it...
too bad this notion was in place during the bush years and when the drums were beating for the Irak war...or when the bush tax cuts were in place...oh well, time to pay up...let's cut medicaid...
Are you advocating 100% balanced budget through tax increases only?
My point being if you want specific amounts cut from specific programs, entitlements, etc that will take some work...I don;t have all the information, but their are people that do. Namely your congressmen and women and the president.
Honestly, I'd like to see what cuts would result in a balanced budget with no new revenue. Then add back entitlements, paid for by tax increases for those that are a necessity.
So does raising taxes to keep paying for more and more and more....
You have a point with GW and the wars. A very good one.
In fairness he isn't advocating that we balance the budget through tax increases alone or we keep raising taxes to pay for more and more,
i think everyone here is talking in the contexts of a massive debt reduction