Class War-Fair Share

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

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...

Jason P

inmytree wrote:

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.

inmytree

Jason P wrote:

inmytree wrote:

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...

some folks will never be happy about anything...

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

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?

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

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.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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?

inlet13

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

Jason P

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.)

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

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.

brianlux wrote:

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.

brianlux wrote:

3. Yes, the government is often inefficient but this has nothing to do with left or right so that one's a draw.

I don't understand this comment.

brianlux wrote:

4. Really? I don't buy it. Statistics lie. I rely on what I know and see and hear.

Yes, really. Maybe you should read or hear something that's not liberally-slanted. Those are real statistics.

brianlux wrote:

5. Sorry if this sounds trite but, "Growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."

Ok. So, you admit, you'd like the economy to shrink?

brianlux wrote:

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.

mikepegg44

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

mikepegg44

cincybearcat wrote:

brianlux wrote:

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"

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

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?

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

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.

brianlux wrote:

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.

brianlux wrote:

3. Yes, the government is often inefficient but this has nothing to do with left or right so that one's a draw.

I don't understand this comment.

brianlux wrote:

4. Really? I don't buy it. Statistics lie. I rely on what I know and see and hear.

Yes, really. Maybe you should read or hear something that's not liberally-slanted. Those are real statistics.

brianlux wrote:

5. Sorry if this sounds trite but, "Growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."

Ok. So, you admit, you'd like the economy to shrink?

brianlux wrote:

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.

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

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...

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

brianlux wrote:

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"...?

Jason P

inmytree wrote:

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.

inmytree

Jason P wrote:

inmytree wrote:

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...?

gimmesometruth27

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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?