| Author | Message | ||
     Strokizator |
the Truth is that poor folk often pay more in taxes as a percentage of their income than rich folk. The "truth" is that, as a percentage of income, poor folk pay more for Big Macs, lawnmowers, and tube socks than rich folks. Perhaps everything should be priced based on your income level. I'll pay $14.00 for a hamburger, Warren Buffet is on the hook for $20,000 and poor folks get them free. Just how long do you think McDonalds or any other company will stay in business under the guidelines of the fairness doctrine? | ||
| Hootowl |
Hey now, don't take things to their logical conclusion. I don't want to pay any more for a big mac than I already do. Besides, free big macs for the poor would upset Michelle Obama something awful. | ||
| Sifo |
if you lower the tax rate for the rich the total revenue for the country goes to shit. you can't increase taxes enough of the rest of us to make up the lost income. that's the bottom line. So often repeated. So easily refuted. Just take a look at the three biggest tax cuts in recent history.    | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Why don't we provide proportional access to social benefits based upon the level of contribution? Why is it fair that those that pay nearly all the cost receive none of the direct benefit and those who pay nearly nothing receive nearly all the benefits? The issue isn't how much revenue (not income BTW) the government takes in but how much is spent. There is simply no way to pay for all the created benefits. Period. I always ask and never receive the answer to the question "How much of the wealth the "rich" earn should they be allowed to collect?". How much is the "fair share" for the "rich"? | ||
| Lostartist |
are you really arguing that "fairness" should be enforced here?? are you communists or something?  | ||
| Cityxslicker |
America is supposed to be the land of Opportunity, not the guarantee of entitlement. The angst against success and capitalism here is just atrocious. They have to fester class conflict, because it takes the attention off of what they are up to, and how bad they are at actually representing the wants and interests of the public they serve. | ||
| Lostartist |
Sifo, interesting charts, thanks for the enlightenment, but that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the bottom 50% of the Population controls 1% of the nations wealth, so raising taxes on them doesn't contribute jack to the bottom line. and lowering taxes and the upper 5% really does affect the bottom line. also I'd like to see those charts as percentages, because over those years, more people were born and therefor more people were working, so a per person or something break down would be needed to make that relevant and I don't know about the JFK/Johnson cuts, but I know the Bush and Reagan tax cuts were also followed by a large amount of Government deficit spending. so did government create jobs there? | ||
| Fahren |
It's not fair, but it is a deep-down, bedrock foundation of government, and has always been. Re-distribution of wealth has been going on for as long as governments have been around. http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152148/the_foundi ng_fathers_believed_in_redistributing_wealth_--_wh y_do_tea_party_heroes_like_perry_and_bachmann_vili fy_it/?page=entire We need to be discussing and debating the best ways to spend, or "re-distribute" the wealth, not debating the long-standing fact that governments tax wealth and re-distribute it, or whether they should be doing it at all, or creating some fiction that wealth re-distribution is a 20th century creation. | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, interesting charts, thanks for the enlightenment, but that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the bottom 50% of the Population controls 1% of the nations wealth, so raising taxes on them doesn't contribute jack to the bottom line. and lowering taxes and the upper 5% really does affect the bottom line. You don't need to raise taxes on the bottom 50% to get revenues to go up. I don't think any of these tax cuts did that. At this point though what raising taxes on the bottom 50% (actually have them start paying some taxes) would do is make them at least feel that it's their money being spent by the government. Right now the bottom 50% couldn't care how it's spent because they don't contribute at all, or even worse, get hand outs. | ||
| Sifo |
also I'd like to see those charts as percentages, because over those years, more people were born and therefor more people were working, so a per person or something break down would be needed to make that relevant There's no way that there was enough population growth to account for the revenue increases of these periods. Simple population growth wouldn't do it without jobs anyway. You need to allow business to do what it does so that they will NEED to hire employees. A business doesn't hire because they want to employ people, the hire simply because they have a need for more labor as the business grows. and I don't know about the JFK/Johnson cuts, but I know the Bush and Reagan tax cuts were also followed by a large amount of Government deficit spending. so did government create jobs there? How does government create jobs? The bottom line is that it doesn't unless the jobs are paid for from tax revenues. Government created jobs are a drag on the economy, period, end of story. | ||
| Lostartist |
government creates jobs the same way tax cuts create jobs. federal money is spent hiring then those employees spend their money on private goods creating demand in the private market. demand then grows businesses. for tax cuts it'd be, money that would have been spent on taxes is diverted to private goods creating demand in the private market. demand then grows businesses. currently the problem we are having is lack of demand, everyone is in a saving mode not a spending mode. | ||
| Sifo |
Tax cuts vs. federal spending hardly work the same way. Before you can do federal spending you either have to take money away from people who have earned it, or borrow money on the promise of taking money away from people who will earn it in the future. This is one of the big factors in today's environment where people are in fear of committing cash to anything that isn't absolutely necessary. This is directly opposite of what letting people keep their money tends to do. | ||
| Strokizator |
Sorry Fahren, but I didn't get very far into that article. The picture of Bachmann that was less than flattering and the claim that Obama is "decidedly centrist" was enough for me. For the record, Senator Obama had the most liberal/left voting record of all 50 members. He is not a centrist. | ||
| Lostartist |
so anarchy then?? who's with me?!  | ||
| Sifo |
Farhen, Aren't you the one who was touting finding unbiased sources of new? If this is an example of that, I think you may be in serious trouble. Just take a look at the "Activism & Vision" link at the top of the source for your article. I didn't even get to the "decidedly centrist" part. The headline alone points out the dishonesty for anyone who knows about the founding of this country. | ||
| Strokizator |
I decided, to be fair to Farhen, that I would read the entire article. The author has a broad definition of redistribution of wealth (ROW). Apparently any time the govt spends tax money it is ROW. Take the gasoline tax revenue and build a road - that's ROW. Take property taxes and fight a forest fire - that's ROW. Build a military - well you get the picture. Redistribution of wealth in Obama's and Van Jones' vision entails taking money from those who have it and giving it directly to those who don't. Van Jones shouts "Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth!" I don't think he's referring to roads and bridges. | ||
| Fahren |
Thanks for your consideration of what is, admittedly, a blatantly left-leaning article (instantly obvious from the wacko Bachmann pic). I agree with that broad definition, and I feel that those on the right who seek to score political points by finger-pointing and demonizing the dis-enfranchised ("those illegals and welfare scum are the downfall of our country") are taking the lazy road that leads to nowhere in terms of solutions. Heck, with that rhetoric, you'll surely persuade some ill-informed voters that Obama ain't fer them, that some minimum wage clerk is going to have her paycheck ripped from her hands by BO himself and handed to an unwed illegal alien mother who is personally hell-bent on bringing down the republic. But you aren't going to solve anything with that exaggerated rhetoric. You're just going to get people riled up against each other, filled with intolerance and hatred, neither of which provides any opportunity for constructive solution-building. If Dem and Repub politicians weren't both so focused on raising money for re-election, maybe we could hope to see a bit of that constructive solution-building in DC. But it's sorely lacking, and seems to be getting worse, not better. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
There are two main components to tax revenues. The first is the rate itself. On face value the higher the rate, the greater the tax revenues collected. The second component is far less understood by the Progressive left, the velocity of money. This is the behavioral component and the MOST influential component in the equation. Taxes CANNOT be collected unless money changes hands. Until wages are paid from employer to employee, income taxes can't be collected. Until items are purchased, sales taxes can't be collected. Until purchased items with gain are sold, capital gains aren't collected. Dropping the rates is far less about the nominal revenue collected and nearly completely about encouraging behaviors that create greater monetary velocity. What causes more money to change hands? What discourages tax avoidance behaviors? | ||
| Fahren |
Sifo, you are right (and this time, you are even correct). But I read it (critically), I didn't see it on TV. That article is a decidedly slanted piece, put out as a rebuttal of crazy far right untruth. That it comes from the Left is obvious from the moment you see the photo of Bachmann. So you know what you are getting when you go into it. I said I try to seek out balanced news outlets. It's hard to find them, though. Obama is decidedly centrist. Way too far to the center for many of his Left core. You can read about it HERE among other sources. As to his decidedly non-socialist economic policies, read HERE Also, recall how many Bush policies have indeed remained in place. Look at Bernanke, Geithner, and all the other Wall Street bankers running "The Obama Show." If that shows you anything, it's that Obama is really, really for re-distribution of wealth: from the bottom up to the top. Socialist? No, I don't think so. | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Jeremy ! Dont kill yourself trying to inlighten those that dont understand . Im the working poor ! If I had money to spend I would ! But I Dont . The people that I work for have stopped spending money . AND THEY AINT POOR OR SUPER RICH ! When the Fed. gives GE a pass on taxes and then gives the CEO a cabinet position because they are making wind mills ? Than GE sends jobs over seas ? Boeing cant open a plant because of the UNIONS ! And the state and Fed wants more money ? Barry called Busch unanerican for spending 4 trillion over 8 years . Barry has spent more than that in 3 . | ||
| Fahren |
It is definitely time to stop coddling the super-rich. | ||
| Fahren |
And more putrescence on our very near horizon: Buffett invests in Bank of America
How much more of this crap will be tolerated until things get nasty on the streets? I wish this were a thread about Jimmy, not Warren...... | ||
| Blake |
>>> Obama is decidedly centrist. That is indefensible. I think you and others confuse greed and power politics with being conservative. Obama is greedy for power to enact his far left wing agenda (fundamental transformation of America), so yes he exploits the wealthy and powerful to help him accomplish his far left wing agenda. Obama is for homosexuals serving openly in the military. That ain't centrist, it's far left. Obama is pro-abortion. That is left winged. Obama refuses to defend the Defense of Marriage act which upholds the definition of "Marriage" as a union between one man and one woman. That is a far left action, not to mention a violation of his oath of office. Obama wants single payer national health care, he'll eventually get it via the current Obamacare. That is far left. Obama wants to put coal out of business in America. EXTREME far left. Obama is a pathological liar. Obama hired Van Jones, a self-avowed communist revolutionary and 9/11 truther to be his "Green Jobs Czar". Obama launched his political career in the home of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn, RADICAL left wing terrorists.   I could go on, and on, and on. | ||
| Blake |
It is unfeakingbelievable that this corrupt lying idiot clown is the President of our nation. | ||
| Hootowl |
This sums it up nicely: http://www.creators.com/editorial_cartoons/2/19315 _image.gif | ||
| Aesquire |
Warren Buffet pays very little in taxes because he only takes a small income level, compared to his "net worth". ( enough to have a lifestyle beyond mine by orders of magnitude, but tiny, compared to my expenditures as a percent of total riches ) Percent of wealth controlled? Poor people control very little, Buffet a huge amount, but that's NOT what each are taxed on. Poor folk pay on every dime they get from working, pay taxes even on welfare checks, and pay sales tax, overall, much higher than rich people. Medium paid folk pay more in sales tax than rich folk, but less than the poor. Partly because of "sin taxes" on tobacco and alcohol. If the Fed's ever legalized and taxed other recreational drugs, again, percentage of income, the poor would pay more. True, the "poor" don't pay income taxes, but they do pay ss taxes and the other hidden taxes, as fees, surcharges, etc. hit them in higher proportion. I've cited the previous class envy/luxury tax results as ruining the American yacht industry. Rich folk just have their toys made in Italy. Poor folk can't afford to send overseas for their stuff. However, actually taxing the poor with income tax to make them feel they have "skin in the game", may have psychological merit. It would take a well done propaganda effort to sell to the poor, and be hard to do with the massive propaganda advantage the Progressives have, but the idea has merit. Cutting taxes on the rich boosts the economy. Proven. Time and again. Kennedy, Regan, Bush. See Laffer curve. be aware that the ends of the curve don't really exist. Zero AND 100% taxes are not real. Neither pay the bills, since at 100% tax, anyone quits paying. Why work for free? I bet you a billion Buffet wouldn't. Cutting taxes on the middle class also does so, but less efficiently. They don't have as much disposable income as richer people, so invest in the economy less. Across the board cuts, like Bush the youngers, are least efficient ( still worked though ) since the "poor" have far less investment money and effect on the economy than the rich. Don't go on about how that across the board tax cut favored the rich since as a percentage of income the numbers for the rich are bigger. Duh. Didn't finish the vid above. I take it the people who bribe the politicians to give them the edge, got the edge on us? Really? No kidding? Like Goldman-Sachs, GE, ADM, etc? Buying into the class envy/hatred line is for fools. Replacing reason with emotion is a common tool of bad guys. Ask the Gypsys. | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Wish I were SUPER RICH ! Never mind , Id have to work at trying to keep my money . Ill just stay home and live off of other peoples money . Oh ! maybe I can join a UNION ! OH ! Better yet , I can get a government job and than join a UNION . Than I can take off work to go protest because It doesnt matter how good I am at what I do , It just matters that I pay my dues! | ||
| Court |
>>>>the bottom 50% of the Population controls 1% of the nations wealth, so raising taxes on them doesn't contribute jack That is correct. Equally correct is that no amount of raising taxes on the wealthy so much as makes a dent in our problem. In fact, if you took ALL the money, assets and wealth of the top 5% of the4 wealthiest Americans you couldn't pay the debt for a single day. Cutting expenses is the ONLY solution. Eventually, and perhaps not gracefully, folks will discover that. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
a true revolution is not swiping a big screen TV from the Electronic Store: it is armed claw back against legislators, bankers, lawyers and apparatchik.... it is exactly what they want. Kill the Czar and His Ministers - read up on Czar Nicholas 1916/Red Oktober Revolution 1917 : its coming to dirt near you. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, >>> actually taxing the poor with income tax to make them feel they have "skin in the game", may have psychological merit. So too shifting ALL the payroll taxes (SS, Medicare, Mediaid) onto the employee, none on the employer. THAT would surely get a LOT of peoples' attention who have been lulled into complacency. When SS started, self-employed didn't have to participate. Then they only had to contribute the employee half share. Now we have to pay the whole ~15%. |
