To reduce the debt, would you support a tax hike for rich?

245678

Comments

  • butterjam
    butterjam Posts: 221
    There should be some sort of increase in taxes on the wealthy. But budget cuts should be the key in reducing the debt. Such as bringing home all troops from around the world. That would be #1 on my list.
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    inmytree wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    pjfan021 wrote:
    yes. additional 700 billion a year.


    what are you talking about? do you mean that if tax cuts expire we would get an additional 700 billion a year? I think you are mistaken.

    Also, if we doubled tax revenue I am fairly certain we would still be running a deficit


    an interesting read...

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... appear.php


    that is interesting...but isn't that letting all the tax cuts expire...not just the rich...also isn't that assuming that the doc fix portion of medicare will also be stopped? meaning that they will receive about a 20% cut in reimbursement for services? it isn't simply the tax cuts that are going to solve the problem...there are also other tax incentives that are set to expire...you see this is the problem with the way this is being reported.
    Those things are simply glossed over but are very important don't you think...the way that link was written you would think that simply letting the 2% tax cut expire is going to solve the budget problem on its own...that isn't the case.
    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
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    mikepegg44 wrote:


    that is interesting...but isn't that letting all the tax cuts expire...not just the rich...also isn't that assuming that the doc fix portion of medicare will also be stopped? meaning that they will receive about a 20% cut in reimbursement for services? it isn't simply the tax cuts that are going to solve the problem...there are also other tax incentives that are set to expire...you see this is the problem with the way this is being reported.
    Those things are simply glossed over but are very important don't you think...the way that link was written you would think that simply letting the 2% tax cut expire is going to solve the budget problem on its own...that isn't the case.

    I've been for all bush tax cuts going away...and been consistent on that...

    anyhoo...in order to address the issue, two things need to happen...spending cuts and tax increases...one side has agreed to lots of cuts, the other has agreed to nothing....

    I understand the problem is complex...I know it's not simple...and I know by letting the bush tax cuts expire, this country would be in a much better place...we need revenue and cuts...

    and please, present some data on how that article is incorrect, because those numbers came from the CBO....I happen to think they do a good job of presenting facts...
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    pjfan021 wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    pjfan021 wrote:
    yes. additional 700 billion a year.


    what are you talking about? do you mean that if tax cuts expire we would get an additional 700 billion a year? I think you are mistaken.

    Also, if we doubled tax revenue I am fairly certain we would still be running a deficit

    i'm sorry, they cost 300 billion a year. that will help along with budget cuts.


    do they really cost 300 billion a year though? can I have a source for that, for what I have seen the tax cuts that bush put into place are projected to cost 1.3 to 1.6 trillion over 10 years....that is far lower than your number...not trying to argue, just not sure where your number came from and would love to see it. Trying to make sense of the budget projections and all that stuff is mind blowing so I could very well have missed your figure somewhere

    but more importantly and a bit off the topic shouldn't we say that that the money ISNT THE FUCKING GOVERNMENTS MONEY TO COUNT AS LOST REVENUE...the money belongs to the person who earned the money now instead of the government...if the government lost it at the craps table...that is lost money...the government cannot lose tax revenue...hopefully that makes some sense.
    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
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    inmytree wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:


    that is interesting...but isn't that letting all the tax cuts expire...not just the rich...also isn't that assuming that the doc fix portion of medicare will also be stopped? meaning that they will receive about a 20% cut in reimbursement for services? it isn't simply the tax cuts that are going to solve the problem...there are also other tax incentives that are set to expire...you see this is the problem with the way this is being reported.
    Those things are simply glossed over but are very important don't you think...the way that link was written you would think that simply letting the 2% tax cut expire is going to solve the budget problem on its own...that isn't the case.

    I've been for all bush tax cuts going away...and been consistent on that...

    anyhoo...in order to address the issue, two things need to happen...spending cuts and tax increases...one side has agreed to lots of cuts, the other has agreed to nothing....

    I understand the problem is complex...I know it's not simple...and I know by letting the bush tax cuts expire, this country would be in a much better place...we need revenue and cuts...

    and please, present some data on how that article is incorrect, because those numbers came from the CBO....I happen to think they do a good job of presenting facts...

    I shall do my best

    here is one about the doc fix they approved last year on a 1 year basis
    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/he ... c-fix-deal

    that means that around a 20% cut in medicare reimbursements to docs as far as I can tell.

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/pf/taxe ... /index.htm
    http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/ ... pire-soon/


    these are just a few, I don't have the time to find every one, but I am sure there are plenty more out there.
    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
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:


    that is interesting...but isn't that letting all the tax cuts expire...not just the rich...also isn't that assuming that the doc fix portion of medicare will also be stopped? meaning that they will receive about a 20% cut in reimbursement for services? it isn't simply the tax cuts that are going to solve the problem...there are also other tax incentives that are set to expire...you see this is the problem with the way this is being reported.
    Those things are simply glossed over but are very important don't you think...the way that link was written you would think that simply letting the 2% tax cut expire is going to solve the budget problem on its own...that isn't the case.

    I've been for all bush tax cuts going away...and been consistent on that...

    anyhoo...in order to address the issue, two things need to happen...spending cuts and tax increases...one side has agreed to lots of cuts, the other has agreed to nothing....

    I understand the problem is complex...I know it's not simple...and I know by letting the bush tax cuts expire, this country would be in a much better place...we need revenue and cuts...

    and please, present some data on how that article is incorrect, because those numbers came from the CBO....I happen to think they do a good job of presenting facts...

    I shall do my best

    here is one about the doc fix they approved last year on a 1 year basis
    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/he ... c-fix-deal

    that means that around a 20% cut in medicare reimbursements to docs as far as I can tell.

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/pf/taxe ... /index.htm
    http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/ ... pire-soon/


    these are just a few, I don't have the time to find every one, but I am sure there are plenty more out there.

    Thanks, Mike...I'll read them over...

    :thumbup:
  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    No.

    More taxes are not needed if we were not involved in two wars and playing in an unconstitutional third.
  • Flagg
    Flagg Posts: 5,856
    Godfather. wrote:
    Davidtrios wrote:
    Godfather. wrote:
    I'll go with the uneducated look of wonder answer :shock: :lol:
    why do we have to raise tax's at all why couldn't we make cuts at the levels where the money is mis-spent ?
    we didn't get into this mess overnight so why do these people think they can fix it over night with higher tax's ?

    Godfather.

    the debt is so great that cuts alone won't do much good.


    there is much money spent (billions) on thing's that we can do with out for a while
    or indefinitely for that matter.

    Godfather.

    Like the great majority of our defense spending?
    DAL-7/5/98,10/17/00,6/9/03,11/15/13
    BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
    MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
    PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
    CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
    HTFD-6/27/08
    ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
    KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
    Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
    PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
    OKC-11/16/13
    SEA-12/6/13
    TUL-10/8/14
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    Nope. Penalizing successful people and discouraging further, job-creating success is foolish.

    History has proven this time and time again.

    Why again are we hashing this out?
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,055
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    Nope. Penalizing successful people and discouraging further, job-creating success is foolish.

    History has proven this time and time again.

    Why again are we hashing this out?
    if you view allowing the bush tax cuts to expire "penalizing the rich for being successful", why should they be "rewarded" by keeping the bush cuts when they have not created the jobs the last 10 years ?

    it is not a reward/penalty thing. it is a "give and take" thing. those people had over 10 years of paying less taxes and it has bankrupted our country. we are in some trouble here. one side is agreeing to cuts, the other side must agree to meet them halfway with means of increasing revenue.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • usamamasan1
    usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    anybody here rich that thinks taxes should be raised for the rich? Or all all of you who are saying "tax the rich" just trying to spend someone's hard earned money.

    I bet it's the later.

    Bad idea.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,055
    usamamasan1 wrote:
    anybody here rich that thinks taxes should be raised for the rich? Or all all of you who are saying "tax the rich" just trying to spend someone's hard earned money.

    I bet it's the later.

    Bad idea.
    i, like most others, are saying let the bush cuts expire and return to clinton levels. obama tried to let them expire last year but the gop held their collective breath and held unemployment benefits hostage until obama agreed to extend them. bet you don't remember that one since it was more than 6 months ago, right?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • usamamasan1
    usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    didn't answer my question from 10 minutes ago let alone 6 months ago

    :roll:
  • CH156378
    CH156378 Posts: 1,539
    usamamasan1 wrote:
    anybody here rich that thinks taxes should be raised for the rich? Or all all of you who are saying "tax the rich" just trying to spend someone's hard earned money.

    I bet it's the later.

    Bad idea.


    http://www.toledofreepress.com/wp-conte ... ppalin.jpg
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,380
    lets try this. Close as many loop holes/tax breaks as possible for companies that shipped jobs overseas and who use other countries banks in an effort to shield them from US tax code?

    Also let those TEMPORARY bush cuts expire. In fact any time cuts are voted in as temporary, I say it should also be a part of the law that they cant be allowed to be extended.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Indifference
    Indifference Posts: 2,759
    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/ ... es%202.png

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/ ... 0Taxes.png

    Some interesting charts.

    SHOW COUNT: (170) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=114, US=124, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
    Mexico=1, Colombia=1 



  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,055
    usamamasan1 wrote:
    didn't answer my question from 10 minutes ago let alone 6 months ago

    :roll:
    kind of like how you never ever answer any questions??

    i answered your question. yes it is a good idea.

    do you remember why obama extended the bush cuts or not? this argument would not be taking place today if the gop had not pulled that stunt. so i ask you:

    with those tax cut extensions, where are the jobs that have been created?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Smellyman
    Smellyman Asia Posts: 4,528
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    Nope. Penalizing successful people and discouraging further, job-creating success is foolish.

    History has proven this time and time again.

    Why again are we hashing this out?

    because history shows, trickle down works. hahahahaha
  • BinauralJam
    BinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Na, they pay too much already.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    usamamasan1 wrote:
    anybody here rich that thinks taxes should be raised for the rich? Or all all of you who are saying "tax the rich" just trying to spend someone's hard earned money.

    I bet it's the later.

    Bad idea.


    I say let all of the bush tax cuts expire...

    by the way, it's "latter"...

    taxes are the cost of being part of this country...don't like it, make a choice... :wave:

Categories