So, now that Mike nailed your question, what say you? Still think pissing in the Ocean is a solution? Obama is in over his head and thinks that taking to Twitter and other such lowest common denominator sort of places, he will win the war. Unfortunately, if he wins, we all lose. Talk about voting against your own interests....
why be so dramatic??
we have to cut spending and we have to raise revenue to do so.
nobody is going to agree on how.
obama won in a landslide. the republicans got their asses handed to them. the democrats had 2.5 million more votes for members of the house than the republicans got. this is a mandate. obama deserves a chance for his agenda to be passed. he is going to social media because the republicans are still stonewalling after an electoral ass whooping. he is shaming them on social media and i find that hilarious.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
So, now that Mike nailed your question, what say you? Still think pissing in the Ocean is a solution? Obama is in over his head and thinks that taking to Twitter and other such lowest common denominator sort of places, he will win the war. Unfortunately, if he wins, we all lose. Talk about voting against your own interests....
why be so dramatic??
we have to cut spending and we have to raise revenue to do so.
nobody is going to agree on how.
obama won in a landslide. the republicans got their asses handed to them. the democrats had 2.5 million more votes for members of the house than the republicans got. this is a mandate. obama deserves a chance for his agenda to be passed. he is going to social media because the republicans are still stonewalling after an electoral ass whooping. he is shaming them on social media and i find that hilarious.
Let's put aside words like landslide - on popular vote it was not a landslide by any means, or mandate - the House is still VERY Republican. If anything, the public voted for more of the same. I'm not quite sure where this mandate thing came from - oh, yeah!! MSNBC and The White House Twit feed.
EDIT: I do also love how you always refuse to respond to questions. But, that's ok. Fall back on what you know.
But, please - how will taxing the "rich" even begin to solve the problem?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
(Ed talks about Woody Guthrie and “This Land Is Your Land.” He talks about taxes, “I pay a lot of taxes, thanks to you, but I don’t want to see that money going to wars. There are bunch of CEO’s complaining that their taxes are going up. Well they aren’t going up. They got cut twelve years ago and they are going back to the rate they were before that. It is like these guys have been drinking at the bar for 12 years for free and now it is time to pay for their drinks. And you know what? They can afford it.” So this song is about something and it has great last line.”)
28. This Land Is Your Land w/ Glen Hansard-(Guthrie)
I find it so interesting that those against taxing the rich fail to understand exactly how much they paid historically prior to Reagan era. So here it is. There's a reason why the economy boomed in the 50s, thanks to higher taxes.
The average top tax rate in the United States since 1917 is 61.4%. Currently the highest rate of income tax the rich have to pay is 34.5%, which is 26.9% below the average.
I find it so interesting that those against taxing the rich fail to understand exactly how much they paid historically prior to Reagan era. So here it is. There's a reason why the economy boomed in the 50s, thanks to higher taxes.
Let's put aside words like landslide - on popular vote it was not a landslide by any means, or mandate - the House is still VERY Republican. If anything, the public voted for more of the same. I'm not quite sure where this mandate thing came from - oh, yeah!! MSNBC and The White House Twit feed.
EDIT: I do also love how you always refuse to respond to questions. But, that's ok. Fall back on what you know.
But, please - how will taxing the "rich" even begin to solve the problem?
its alright edson, i know how you feel. i, too, was butthurt when kerry lost in a "landslide" that had a smaller margin of popular and electoral votes than obama just got....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I find it so interesting that those against taxing the rich fail to understand exactly how much they paid historically prior to Reagan era. So here it is. There's a reason why the economy boomed in the 50s, thanks to higher taxes.
saint reagan raised taxes greater than 10 times...
Don't get me started on Reagan...
Ronald Reagan opposed workers' rights.
Ronald Reagan opposed the feminist movement.
During the Reagan administration, major corporations laid off tens of thousands of American workers while making enormous profits.
As productivity increased, from 1980 to the present, working people's wages remained essentially frozen.
And of course, The richest had their taxes cut in half.
I find it so interesting that those against taxing the rich fail to understand exactly how much they paid historically prior to Reagan era. So here it is. There's a reason why the economy boomed in the 50s, thanks to higher taxes.
The average top tax rate in the United States since 1917 is 61.4%. Currently the highest rate of income tax the rich have to pay is 34.5%, which is 26.9% below the average.
The statistics about the average top rate could also be applied to "middle" and "lower" rates as well just FYI so maybe those should be increased as well based on this argument?
Let's put aside words like landslide - on popular vote it was not a landslide by any means, or mandate - the House is still VERY Republican. If anything, the public voted for more of the same. I'm not quite sure where this mandate thing came from - oh, yeah!! MSNBC and The White House Twit feed.
EDIT: I do also love how you always refuse to respond to questions. But, that's ok. Fall back on what you know.
But, please - how will taxing the "rich" even begin to solve the problem?
its alright edson, i know how you feel. i, too, was butthurt when kerry lost in a "landslide" that had a smaller margin of popular and electoral votes than obama just got....
When did Kerry lose in a landslide?
I have to revisit my definitions. First one up:
Avoidance
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I find it so interesting that those against taxing the rich fail to understand exactly how much they paid historically prior to Reagan era. So here it is. There's a reason why the economy boomed in the 50s, thanks to higher taxes.
The average top tax rate in the United States since 1917 is 61.4%. Currently the highest rate of income tax the rich have to pay is 34.5%, which is 26.9% below the average.
The statistics about the average top rate could also be applied to "middle" and "lower" rates as well just FYI so maybe those should be increased as well based on this argument?
Stop annoying us with you details!!! Those damn details will get us every time.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I find it so interesting that those against taxing the rich fail to understand exactly how much they paid historically prior to Reagan era. So here it is. There's a reason why the economy boomed in the 50s, thanks to higher taxes.
saint reagan raised taxes greater than 10 times...
Don't get me started on Reagan...
Ronald Reagan opposed workers' rights.
Ronald Reagan opposed the feminist movement.
During the Reagan administration, major corporations laid off tens of thousands of American workers while making enormous profits.
As productivity increased, from 1980 to the present, working people's wages remained essentially frozen.
And of course, The richest had their taxes cut in half.
Again - we had the highest Federal Gov't revenues in 2006, 2007 and 2008 with the Bush tax rates. If they were the problem, then how do you explain that?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Military, Social Security, Medicare / Medicade ... 80% of our budget. No one wants to cut them.
I wonder where I will move to when the Austerity measures start in around 15 years?
:think:
This is the problem. Classic example:
Bush implements a sensible Part D drug plan for Medicare that both covers catastrophic care and doesn't "break the bank." While still not truly affordable, at least he tried to balance offering coverage and economics.
The liberals bash him for the "donut hole" which was Actuarially necessary to both cover initial and catastrophic expenses (so, cover the MOST people while balancing affordability of the program overall). It was sheer brilliance. OBama comes along and fills it in. The masses are thrilled, and it can never get cut back, except is entirely unaffordable now (it was a stretch before, but now forget it. It's totally reflective of the problem at large - repsond to the whiners, win re-election. Ignore the facts).
That'll teach the Republicans to ever offer up a social program again. No good deed goes unpunished.
It needs to be cut. That does not mean do away with it. It means, find a balance between reasonable coverage and reasonable expense. But, that will never happen - let's collect a nickel off the rich bastard because he can afford it to pay a $1,000 debt.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I find it so interesting that those against taxing the rich fail to understand exactly how much they paid historically prior to Reagan era. So here it is. There's a reason why the economy boomed in the 50s, thanks to higher taxes.
The average top tax rate in the United States since 1917 is 61.4%. Currently the highest rate of income tax the rich have to pay is 34.5%, which is 26.9% below the average.
The statistics about the average top rate could also be applied to "middle" and "lower" rates as well just FYI so maybe those should be increased as well based on this argument?
Are you trying to change the subject? This is about the wealthiest tax rates. It's been done before, and can certainly be done again.
I find it so interesting that those against taxing the rich fail to understand exactly how much they paid historically prior to Reagan era. So here it is. There's a reason why the economy boomed in the 50s, thanks to higher taxes.
The average top tax rate in the United States since 1917 is 61.4%. Currently the highest rate of income tax the rich have to pay is 34.5%, which is 26.9% below the average.
The statistics about the average top rate could also be applied to "middle" and "lower" rates as well just FYI so maybe those should be increased as well based on this argument?
Are you trying to change the subject? This is about the wealthiest tax rates. It's been done before, and can certainly be done again.
That's right!!! Right on!!!! We should be ignoring these pesky details. We were talking about the "rich" bastards that are living it up at our expense making $250K in places like NYC!!!!!
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Are you trying to change the subject? This is about the wealthiest tax rates. It's been done before, and can certainly be done again.
Just trying to understand the logic. Wealthiest tax rates should be higher because they use to be, but we should ignore the other tax brackets which were much higher as well.
Are you trying to change the subject? This is about the wealthiest tax rates. It's been done before, and can certainly be done again.
Just trying to understand the logic. Wealthiest tax rates should be higher because they use to be, but we should ignore the other tax brackets which were much higher as well.
I think the logic lies within how poverty is growing in this country, the highest its ever been, versus the rich have been the richest that they have been currently as well. You've got the 1%, and then you've got the 99%, where much of that 99% is now in poverty level with a disappearing middle class. Do you want more logic than that? Using logic towards raising taxes for everyone may have to happen, but you're forgetting income levels are more extreme than ever, and the govt has got to work with that because you can't extract water from a stone. You can't raise rates on folks who are on food stamps!
Just trying to understand the logic. Wealthiest tax rates should be higher because they use to be, but we should ignore the other tax brackets which were much higher as well.
I think the logic lies within how poverty is growing in this country, the highest its ever been, versus the rich have been the richest that they have been currently as well. You've got the 1%, and then you've got the 99%, where much of that 99% is now in poverty level with a disappearing middle class. Do you want more logic than that? Using logic towards raising taxes for everyone may have to happen, but you're forgetting income levels are more extreme than ever, and the govt has got to work with that because you can't extract water from a stone. You can't raise rates on folks who are on food stamps!
I think you both make good points. That said, I do agree with Jeanwah that as more and more wealth has been concentrated with fewer and fewer people, those tax rates the middle and lower classes used to pay have less relevance. But it is an interesting argument.
Over the last half century, the richest Americans shifted the burden of the federal individual income tax off themselves onto everybody else. The three convenient and accurate Wikipedia graphs below show the details. The first graph compares the official tax rates paid by the top and bottom income earners. Notice especially that from the end of World War 2 into the early 1960s, the highest income earners paid a tax rate over 90% during many years. Today, the top earners pay a rate of only 35%. Notice also how the gap between the rates paid by the richest and the poorest has narrowed. If we take into account the many loopholes the rich can and do use far more than the poor, the gap narrows even more.
Historical Tax Rates for the Lowest and Highest Income Earners (see website for graph)
One conclusion is clear and obvious: the richest Americans have dramatically lowered their income tax burden since 1945, both absolutely and relative to the tax burdens of the middle-income groups and the poor.
Consider two further points based on the graph above: (1) if the highest income earners today were required to pay the same rate that they paid for many years after 1945, the federal government would need far lower deficits to support the private economy through its current crisis, and (2) those tax-the-rich years after 1945 experienced far lower unemployment and far faster economic growth than we have had for years.
The lower taxes they got for themselves are one reason why the rich have become so much richer over the last half century. Just as their tax rates started to come down from their 1960s heights, so their shares of the total national income began their rise. As the two other Wikipedia graphs below show, we have now returned to the extreme inequality of income that characterized the US a century ago.
Just trying to understand the logic. Wealthiest tax rates should be higher because they use to be, but we should ignore the other tax brackets which were much higher as well.
I think the logic lies within how poverty is growing in this country, the highest its ever been, versus the rich have been the richest that they have been currently as well. You've got the 1%, and then you've got the 99%, where much of that 99% is now in poverty level with a disappearing middle class. Do you want more logic than that? Using logic towards raising taxes for everyone may have to happen, but you're forgetting income levels are more extreme than ever, and the govt has got to work with that because you can't extract water from a stone. You can't raise rates on folks who are on food stamps!
Guess looking at things from different ways then as something needs to be done when work is punished:
it is possible to raise revenue without raising taxes. Policy and regulations that support entrepreneurial capitalism will do more to raise revenue in a sustaining way than simply raising rates on those that will pay slightly less of the cost of those taxes to an account to figure out how not to pay the increased rate.
I have said it before and I will say it again, if you DOUBLE tax revenue in 2011 (total individual taxes = ~1.05 trillion; deficit = 1.3 trillion.) you don't erase the deficit. So how is raising taxes on people who make up a small percentage of that revenue going to do anything but piss in the ocean. This means that you can literally raise tax burdens 100% on every american and you would still be running a deficit.
these percentage points are unnecessary to discuss until the theory behind deficit spending is discussed and the process eradicated for reasons other than national emergency (don't really like it then but would make that sacrifice for sure)...
in isn't a never ending well...eventually our time at the top will come to an end and we can be prepared for it with a paired down sensible government or we can come crashing to a halt and have riots in the streets. All empires come to an end, the days of the dollar being the world's reserve currency are numbered and we need to start acting like it.
it is possible to raise revenue without raising taxes. Policy and regulations that support entrepreneurial capitalism will do more to raise revenue in a sustaining way than simply raising rates on those that will pay slightly less of the cost of those taxes to an account to figure out how not to pay the increased rate.
I have said it before and I will say it again, if you DOUBLE tax revenue in 2011 (total individual taxes = ~1.05 trillion; deficit = 1.3 trillion.) you don't erase the deficit. So how is raising taxes on people who make up a small percentage of that revenue going to do anything but piss in the ocean. This means that you can literally raise tax burdens 100% on every american and you would still be running a deficit.
these percentage points are unnecessary to discuss until the theory behind deficit spending is discussed and the process eradicated for reasons other than national emergency (don't really like it then but would make that sacrifice for sure)...
in isn't a never ending well...eventually our time at the top will come to an end and we can be prepared for it with a paired down sensible government or we can come crashing to a halt and have riots in the streets. All empires come to an end, the days of the dollar being the world's reserve currency are numbered and we need to start acting like it.
Mike Pegg 2016?
He wouldn't win as he speaks of reality and not dreams.
I have said it before and I will say it again, if you DOUBLE tax revenue in 2011 (total individual taxes = ~1.05 trillion; deficit = 1.3 trillion.) you don't erase the deficit. So how is raising taxes on people who make up a small percentage of that revenue going to do anything but piss in the ocean.
You can't cut your way out of the deficit, either. And cutting enough to make a meaningful impact would throw us back into recession, thereby making the deficit worse. We shouldn't raise the highest marginal tax rate because it wouldn't eliminate the deficit is a horrible argument, sorry.
I have said it before and I will say it again, if you DOUBLE tax revenue in 2011 (total individual taxes = ~1.05 trillion; deficit = 1.3 trillion.) you don't erase the deficit. So how is raising taxes on people who make up a small percentage of that revenue going to do anything but piss in the ocean.
You can't cut your way out of the deficit, either. And cutting enough to make a meaningful impact would throw us back into recession, thereby making the deficit worse. We shouldn't raise the highest marginal tax rate because it wouldn't eliminate the deficit is a horrible argument, sorry.
You can at least throw a dog a bone and show that you can actually cut spending.
There is no way you can fix the problem today without screwing the economy. That is why the politicians have their "ten year plans". But the plans never account for decreases in spending ... Only how revenue can pay for them.
In note, start buying gold and find good spots to hide it in the dirt.
I have said it before and I will say it again, if you DOUBLE tax revenue in 2011 (total individual taxes = ~1.05 trillion; deficit = 1.3 trillion.) you don't erase the deficit. So how is raising taxes on people who make up a small percentage of that revenue going to do anything but piss in the ocean.
You can't cut your way out of the deficit, either. And cutting enough to make a meaningful impact would throw us back into recession, thereby making the deficit worse. We shouldn't raise the highest marginal tax rate because it wouldn't eliminate the deficit is a horrible argument, sorry.
My numbers weren't an argument against raising revenue, or tax rates for that matter...
that wasn't my argument. And secondly, if the argument FOR doing it is that it will shrink the deficit, well, that is a horrible argument. Because it won't. Do you not find it strange that it has gotten so bad that if you double income tax revenue you don't solve the deficit problem?
My argument was that until there is an honest conversation about the validity of deficit spending, there is no need to raise tax rates. It won't make a dent and is just a red herring to take the focus off of the real problem. No one in Washington has any intention of cutting spending...they simply want to shift it to their pet projects.
Cutting tax loop holes, creating tax incentives for hiring locally, actually decreasing spending (not simply smaller baseline increases), etc...that is the crux of my argument. I don't believe you need to raise rates in order to raise revenue. from where I am sitting, it seems that if the new tax rates allow them to raise 200 billion dollars, they will just spend 210 billion new dollars...
my argument is that deficit spending is dangerous when done with no limits. The top marginal tax rate could be 70% for all I care, They could take it all every year, but if they continue to spend more than they take in, they are just stealing the value of dollars from you and everyone else...I would really think that would piss more people off than it does...
Honestly, a responsible government could take as much as they wanted from me, it's just my luck we don't and probably won't ever have one.
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
Obama should spend less time doing Webinars to convince the masses he's right and more time meeting face to face with those he needs to talk to to get something done.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Comments
we have to cut spending and we have to raise revenue to do so.
nobody is going to agree on how.
obama won in a landslide. the republicans got their asses handed to them. the democrats had 2.5 million more votes for members of the house than the republicans got. this is a mandate. obama deserves a chance for his agenda to be passed. he is going to social media because the republicans are still stonewalling after an electoral ass whooping. he is shaming them on social media and i find that hilarious.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Let's put aside words like landslide - on popular vote it was not a landslide by any means, or mandate - the House is still VERY Republican. If anything, the public voted for more of the same. I'm not quite sure where this mandate thing came from - oh, yeah!! MSNBC and The White House Twit feed.
EDIT: I do also love how you always refuse to respond to questions. But, that's ok. Fall back on what you know.
But, please - how will taxing the "rich" even begin to solve the problem?
http://politicalirony.com/2010/11/27/th ... tax-rates/
The average top tax rate in the United States since 1917 is 61.4%. Currently the highest rate of income tax the rich have to pay is 34.5%, which is 26.9% below the average.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/11/22/th ... l-average/
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Don't get me started on Reagan...
Ronald Reagan opposed workers' rights.
Ronald Reagan opposed the feminist movement.
During the Reagan administration, major corporations laid off tens of thousands of American workers while making enormous profits.
As productivity increased, from 1980 to the present, working people's wages remained essentially frozen.
And of course, The richest had their taxes cut in half.
The statistics about the average top rate could also be applied to "middle" and "lower" rates as well just FYI so maybe those should be increased as well based on this argument?
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
I have to revisit my definitions. First one up:
Avoidance
Stop annoying us with you details!!! Those damn details will get us every time.
Again - we had the highest Federal Gov't revenues in 2006, 2007 and 2008 with the Bush tax rates. If they were the problem, then how do you explain that?
This is the problem. Classic example:
Bush implements a sensible Part D drug plan for Medicare that both covers catastrophic care and doesn't "break the bank." While still not truly affordable, at least he tried to balance offering coverage and economics.
The liberals bash him for the "donut hole" which was Actuarially necessary to both cover initial and catastrophic expenses (so, cover the MOST people while balancing affordability of the program overall). It was sheer brilliance. OBama comes along and fills it in. The masses are thrilled, and it can never get cut back, except is entirely unaffordable now (it was a stretch before, but now forget it. It's totally reflective of the problem at large - repsond to the whiners, win re-election. Ignore the facts).
That'll teach the Republicans to ever offer up a social program again. No good deed goes unpunished.
It needs to be cut. That does not mean do away with it. It means, find a balance between reasonable coverage and reasonable expense. But, that will never happen - let's collect a nickel off the rich bastard because he can afford it to pay a $1,000 debt.
Are you trying to change the subject? This is about the wealthiest tax rates. It's been done before, and can certainly be done again.
That's right!!! Right on!!!! We should be ignoring these pesky details. We were talking about the "rich" bastards that are living it up at our expense making $250K in places like NYC!!!!!
Just trying to understand the logic. Wealthiest tax rates should be higher because they use to be, but we should ignore the other tax brackets which were much higher as well.
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
I think the logic lies within how poverty is growing in this country, the highest its ever been, versus the rich have been the richest that they have been currently as well. You've got the 1%, and then you've got the 99%, where much of that 99% is now in poverty level with a disappearing middle class. Do you want more logic than that? Using logic towards raising taxes for everyone may have to happen, but you're forgetting income levels are more extreme than ever, and the govt has got to work with that because you can't extract water from a stone. You can't raise rates on folks who are on food stamps!
I think you both make good points. That said, I do agree with Jeanwah that as more and more wealth has been concentrated with fewer and fewer people, those tax rates the middle and lower classes used to pay have less relevance. But it is an interesting argument.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Over the last half century, the richest Americans shifted the burden of the federal individual income tax off themselves onto everybody else. The three convenient and accurate Wikipedia graphs below show the details. The first graph compares the official tax rates paid by the top and bottom income earners. Notice especially that from the end of World War 2 into the early 1960s, the highest income earners paid a tax rate over 90% during many years. Today, the top earners pay a rate of only 35%. Notice also how the gap between the rates paid by the richest and the poorest has narrowed. If we take into account the many loopholes the rich can and do use far more than the poor, the gap narrows even more.
Historical Tax Rates for the Lowest and Highest Income Earners (see website for graph)
One conclusion is clear and obvious: the richest Americans have dramatically lowered their income tax burden since 1945, both absolutely and relative to the tax burdens of the middle-income groups and the poor.
Consider two further points based on the graph above: (1) if the highest income earners today were required to pay the same rate that they paid for many years after 1945, the federal government would need far lower deficits to support the private economy through its current crisis, and (2) those tax-the-rich years after 1945 experienced far lower unemployment and far faster economic growth than we have had for years.
The lower taxes they got for themselves are one reason why the rich have become so much richer over the last half century. Just as their tax rates started to come down from their 1960s heights, so their shares of the total national income began their rise. As the two other Wikipedia graphs below show, we have now returned to the extreme inequality of income that characterized the US a century ago.
Guess looking at things from different ways then as something needs to be done when work is punished:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-2 ... fare-state
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
Most people don't like reality.
You can't cut your way out of the deficit, either. And cutting enough to make a meaningful impact would throw us back into recession, thereby making the deficit worse. We shouldn't raise the highest marginal tax rate because it wouldn't eliminate the deficit is a horrible argument, sorry.
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
There is no way you can fix the problem today without screwing the economy. That is why the politicians have their "ten year plans". But the plans never account for decreases in spending ... Only how revenue can pay for them.
In note, start buying gold and find good spots to hide it in the dirt.
My numbers weren't an argument against raising revenue, or tax rates for that matter...
that wasn't my argument. And secondly, if the argument FOR doing it is that it will shrink the deficit, well, that is a horrible argument. Because it won't. Do you not find it strange that it has gotten so bad that if you double income tax revenue you don't solve the deficit problem?
My argument was that until there is an honest conversation about the validity of deficit spending, there is no need to raise tax rates. It won't make a dent and is just a red herring to take the focus off of the real problem. No one in Washington has any intention of cutting spending...they simply want to shift it to their pet projects.
Cutting tax loop holes, creating tax incentives for hiring locally, actually decreasing spending (not simply smaller baseline increases), etc...that is the crux of my argument. I don't believe you need to raise rates in order to raise revenue. from where I am sitting, it seems that if the new tax rates allow them to raise 200 billion dollars, they will just spend 210 billion new dollars...
my argument is that deficit spending is dangerous when done with no limits. The top marginal tax rate could be 70% for all I care, They could take it all every year, but if they continue to spend more than they take in, they are just stealing the value of dollars from you and everyone else...I would really think that would piss more people off than it does...
Honestly, a responsible government could take as much as they wanted from me, it's just my luck we don't and probably won't ever have one.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Make it a consumption tax and let's move on to more important things....like cutting spending.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.