Tax the Rich, Take Your Hands Off Medicare: US Majority

2

Comments

  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,670
    EdsonNascimento wrote:

    And that program really didn't work. But, that's an entirely other argument. The best way to get people back to work is to have work for them to have and not create a dependency (again - to save the spin - I am not saying EVERYONE is lazy, or that we don't need a safety net, or whatever you like to spin this as. But, Giuliani proved in NYC that you CAN get folks off welfare by disincentivizing that way of life - which his predecessor David Dinkins thought impossible - Dinkins espoused - you have to expand the "safety net" because these poor people couldn't help themselves.).

    You reference Giuliani getting people off welfare every so often, and I know it's off topic, but all Giuliani did was raise thresholds and requirements in order for people to receive public assistance. So yes, this did reduce the number of people on welfare, but it didn't reduce the number of people in poverty. You're assuming that his disincentivizing "that way of life" meant that the people who no longer received public assistance were then working decent jobs.
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    Go Beavers wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:

    And that program really didn't work. But, that's an entirely other argument. The best way to get people back to work is to have work for them to have and not create a dependency (again - to save the spin - I am not saying EVERYONE is lazy, or that we don't need a safety net, or whatever you like to spin this as. But, Giuliani proved in NYC that you CAN get folks off welfare by disincentivizing that way of life - which his predecessor David Dinkins thought impossible - Dinkins espoused - you have to expand the "safety net" because these poor people couldn't help themselves.).

    You reference Giuliani getting people off welfare every so often, and I know it's off topic, but all Giuliani did was raise thresholds and requirements in order for people to receive public assistance. So yes, this did reduce the number of people on welfare, but it didn't reduce the number of people in poverty. You're assuming that his disincentivizing "that way of life" meant that the people who no longer received public assistance were then working decent jobs.

    First, that wasn't all he did, but yes, he did do that as part of his successful plan. You are right - not EVERYONE got jobs. But, job holders did INCREASE (I won't say from this, as nothing is ever that simple). Are there folks that "fell through the cracks?" I'm sure there were, and then programs were created to patch that. But, from every perspective, the economy in NYC improved DRAMATICALLY under Giuliani based on the theory of teaching to fish instead of giving the fish. (and crime when down, and revenues went up without increasing taxes - as a matter of fact - he gave MORE tax breaks to "Disneyfy Time Square," for example, and quality of life increased). It was an amazing turn around if you grew up with a city that folks were reluctant to visit.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    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.
    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
  • pandora
    pandora Posts: 21,855
    Make budget cuts the same across the board...
    then lower taxes on those under 250,000 so more take home pay comes back to
    the economy and charity.
    250,000 to one million they are not wealthy
    they hard working educated professionals do not raise tax.

    As far as filthy rich they should pay as others do in the bracket below them
    I am assuming from the hub bub they are not.

    And stop taxing business ...
    encourage business it is the bread and butter of our country
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    pandora wrote:
    Make budget cuts the same across the board...
    then lower taxes on those under 250,000 so more take home pay comes back to
    the economy and charity.
    250,000 to one million they are not wealthy
    they hard working educated professionals do not raise tax.

    As far as filthy rich they should pay as others do in the bracket below them
    I am assuming from the hub bub they are not.

    And stop taxing business ...
    encourage business it is the bread and butter of our country

    While I don't agree with everything (I don't think you can completely stop taxing businesses, but I get your idea), overall this makes a hell of a lot more sense as a starting point than "I'm digging my heels in until you tax those "rich" bastards and YOU'RE the problem if you don't do as I say."
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,878
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    if the super rich top 2% are so concerned about their taxes going up, then why did they overwhelmingly support obama in the election a few weeks ago?

    What years were tax revenues the highest?

    2006, 2007 and 2008 are still the title holders.

    Who was President?

    What were the tax rates?

    What was (true) unemployment?

    What was the deficit?

    Spending and (true) unemployment are the problems. Not revenues.
    the question remains. if they are so concerned about their taxes going up, why did the rich overwhelmingly vote for obama and reject romney?
    "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."
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    the question remains. if they are so concerned about their taxes going up, why did the rich overwhelmingly vote for obama and reject romney?


    Because really rich people know that the government will give it right back to them no matter who is in office in contracts and grants :lol: the extremely rich won't be affected by a raise in Income tax percentages.

    Sometimes people don't vote on one issue, like taxes. Seems to go against the idea that the top 1% is evil and is set out to take advantage of the system though doesn't it? And as you say, people vote against their best interest all the time ;)

    In all seriousness I don't think taxes were a deciding factor for people, as much as the 1% gets demonized, I don't think they are as focused on only money as some think. i think it was trust, people don't trust the GOP as far as they can throw it.
    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
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    if the super rich top 2% are so concerned about their taxes going up, then why did they overwhelmingly support obama in the election a few weeks ago?

    What years were tax revenues the highest?

    2006, 2007 and 2008 are still the title holders.

    Who was President?

    What were the tax rates?

    What was (true) unemployment?

    What was the deficit?

    Spending and (true) unemployment are the problems. Not revenues.
    the question remains. if they are so concerned about their taxes going up, why did the rich overwhelmingly vote for obama and reject romney?

    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....
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Jeanwah wrote:
    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/28-3

    Published on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 by Common Dreams
    Tax the Rich, Take Your Hands Off Medicare: Overwhelming US Majority
    - Common Dreams staff

    A large majority of US citizens would like to see higher taxes on the rich and oppose cuts to Medicare as an answer to the US deficit, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Washington Post and ABC News.

    Roughly sixty percent of those asked stated that they would like to see higher income taxes on those in higher income brackets -- $250,000 and greater.

    Only 37 percent opposed a progressive tax system.

    Those who answered with “strong” support for raising taxes on the rich were roughly double the number with "strong" opposition: 42 percent for vs. 23 percent against.

    Seventy-three percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents support higher taxes on the rich. 59 percent of Republicans oppose it.

    Additionally two-thirds of Americans oppose a raise in Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 as is proposed by many Republican lawmakers. Only 30 percent support it.

    According to the Huffington Post, these numbers remain consistent with polls taken throughout the year. On Nov. 6, the same percentage of Americans sided with higher taxes on the wealthy, as well with a similar poll earlier in the year.

    The poll arrives as lawmakers debate this week over next year's budget plan -- negotiating over public spending and taxation options. As politicians, along with corporate media outlets, raise fears over the so called "fiscal cliff," or sequestration that will occur if opposing forces don't make a "grand bargain," which could include potential cuts to Medicare and Social Security, the solutions provided by these national polls make clear what the majority of the American public would like to see happen instead.

    We already have higher taxes on the rich.

    As usual, this is worded in a very careful manner. Is it actually asking if people favor a progressive tax system or not? That's different than wanting to raise taxes further on the rich.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,394
    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:
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,878
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    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

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    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. :lol:

    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.
  • JonnyPistachio
    JonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    I simply found this interesting, from last nights ED solo show in Orlando:
    Kat wrote:
    (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)
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    edited November 2012
    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.

    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/
    Post edited by Jeanwah on
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,878
    Jeanwah wrote:
    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.

    http://politicalirony.com/2010/11/27/th ... tax-rates/
    saint reagan raised taxes greater than 10 times...
    "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."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,878
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    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. :lol:

    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

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    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.

    http://politicalirony.com/2010/11/27/th ... tax-rates/
    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.
  • Indifference
    Indifference Posts: 2,784
    Jeanwah wrote:
    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.

    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/

    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: (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 



  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    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. :lol:

    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.
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    Indifference wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    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.

    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/

    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.

Categories