Will It Take a Second Revolution to Get The Wealthy to Pay Higher Taxes?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, dipshit, I was burning you, as usual, the easiest, funnest thing I know how to do.

what? how were you burning me by backing kenneth up? how did you burn me by not knowing shay's rebellion was not about raising taxes in the wealthy?

 

[Mr. T]

Where are the sons of Liberty when we need them?

 

[Conservative]

They are here in the Tea Party.

 

[apple0154]

I've not heard that SS and Medicare waste money, I hear they are running out of money. Not saying the massive government programs don't waste money, I'm sure a lot of money is indeed wasted, on administrative costs, on fraud, on things they shouldn't be subsidizing to begin with.. but that's not what anyone is raising a concern about... it's the fact that 70 million Baby Boomers are set to retire, and the system can't handle the load. We know this is coming, we've known it for years, but every time anyone has attempted to address the problem with any sort of partial privatization, it was shut down with fear rhetoric. Basically, we're aboard the Titanic, heading for Niagara Falls.

The solution is not all that complicated. SS originated due to the Great Depression and seeing people die due to a lack of life's necessities. Then, as now, rather then simply help those in need the government had to show that everyone would benefit from SS in order to get people to willingly contribute. That is what requires correction.

Look at welfare. Everyone contributes via taxes but not everyone is entitled to welfare. Those who contribute via taxes and never collect welfare over their working life do not get a lump sum at retirement as a share. The same idea can apply to SS.

Your comment, "the system can't handle the load", is nonsense if "load" means looking after the ill and elderly. Technology has transformed society to the point they can be looked after. The only thing preventing such is the greed of certain individuals. Nothing more. There is no shortage of life's necessities such as food and clothing and housing. If there is enough for everyone, and there is, why should anyone have to go without?



////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I think this was a Freudian slip, he meant to say "unrestrained capitalism" and not "democracy." Of course, with pinheads, the words are probably interchangeable.

I've not heard that SS and Medicare waste money, I hear they are running out of money. Not saying the massive government programs don't waste money, I'm sure a lot of money is indeed wasted, on administrative costs, on fraud, on things they shouldn't be subsidizing to begin with.. but that's not what anyone is raising a concern about... it's the fact that 70 million Baby Boomers are set to retire, and the system can't handle the load. We know this is coming, we've known it for years, but every time anyone has attempted to address the problem with any sort of partial privatization, it was shut down with fear rhetoric. Basically, we're aboard the Titanic, heading for Niagara Falls.

An Income Tax rate of 100% on the top 1%, would pay for less than one fiscal quarter of the Obama 2011 deficit.
We could suspend the Constitution and confiscate 100% of all wealth from the Fortune 400 richest people in America... it would barely pay for two years of Obama's deficits.
Obama's debt will surpass the debts of all other predecessors, COMBINED.
Currently, our Debt is at 100% of our GDP.

That's the one BAD solution we don't want to do. The GOOD solution, is to cut spending dramatically, on things which have the least impact on jobs and the economy. Another GOOD solution, would be to adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment, and hold Congress' feet to the fire on spending in the future. If you want to look at taxes, it might be a good idea to lower corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, etc. Every time in modern history this has been done, it resulted in increased revenues. But besides creating more revenue, it would also stimulate job growth and economic expansion. You see... what you don't get is, you NEED rich people to do what rich people do! When they are moving and shaking... we are working and prospering.

It's almost blasphemous for a libtard to use the name of such a great man as Adams, or any of our founding fathers, for that matter. You scum-maggots don't give two good shits about this country, how it was founded, or the principles behind it. Your mission is to destroy that and pave the way for Utopian Eurotrash Socialism!

 

[apple0154]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html
The Top 1% pay 40% of all income tax.
The Top 5% pay 60% of all income tax.
The Top 10% pay 70%...
The Top 50% pay 96.93% of all income tax.
The Bottom 50% pay ~3%

It seems to me, the people who are "not paying their fair share" are those in the bottom 50%.

That is the silliest thing I've ever read.

If a person receives little or no income then their "fair share" is little or nothing. A share is a portion of what a person has. The less they have the smaller their "fair share" to be paid.

 

[Damocles]

That is the silliest thing I've ever read.

If a person receives little or no income then their "fair share" is little or nothing. A share is a portion of what a person has. The less they have the smaller their "fair share" to be paid.

It is actually your assertion that 50% of America are so poor that they cannot pay anything?

Exactly who do you think we should tax and how much?

Let's compromise... I say, let's go back to Clinton level taxes, so long as we go back to Clinton level spending and force our government to remain sane with a BBA... There's your compromise Apple.

 

[charver]

Just a question. You do understand that corporate taxes are basically a hidden sales tax passed on to consumers... right? It's not like the money they should pay taxes on come from magic, it comes from consumers. The more they pay, the more will pass through to consumers.

I'm not saying they should have holes to hide in, I just want to ensure that we all understand that corporations don't pay taxes, their consumers do.

So the position in summary.

1. We can't tax corporations sufficiently as this will lead to the 'consumer', or ordinary taxpayer, picking up the bill in increased charges.

2. If we don't tax corporations then the ordinary taxpayer ends up picking up the bill through increased taxation.

This sounds fantastic and when i grow up (this may be some time away) i want to be a corporation, Daddy.

 

[apple0154]

It is actually your assertion that 50% of America are so poor that they cannot pay anything?

Not at all. Dixie wrote, "The Bottom 50% pay ~3%." That's 3% of the total collected. Not 3% of an individual's income. If Dixie's graph shows anything it shows just how wealthy the top 1% and 5% are.

Exactly who do you think we should tax and how much?

There needs to be a guaranteed income level established. Those below that level receive assistance and those above pay a "fair share", an amount to ensure all those below the established level receive sufficient assistance.

Let's compromise... I say, let's go back to Clinton level taxes, so long as we go back to Clinton level spending and force our government to remain sane with a BBA... There's your compromise Apple.

As I noted before some governments run up debt so that succeeding governments can not implement social programs due to being obliged to honor the debts incurred by previous governments. The most obvious example are wars. Recall Rummy's comment, "War with Iraq was an option we could afford."

How can any country afford a war when some of it's citizens do not have medical coverage let alone a decent place to live or healthy food to eat?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

They were upset over forclosures. It wasn't the wealthy who rebelled was it?

Yeah, a good portion of them were.

 

[The Dude]

I must have mist it!!
Did gaylored kenneth show where people are leaving in droves?
Oh wait, people risk life and limb to get here?

Cost of living in these other high tax countries in Europe is double ours.

 

[charver]

I must have mist it!!
Did gaylored kenneth show where people are leaving in droves?
Oh wait, people risk life and limb to get here?

Cost of living in these other high tax countries in Europe is double ours.

To be fair, people are risking life and limb to get to those high tax European countries as well.

Personally, i blame geography.

 

[The Dude]

we'll worry about comparing to England when they get dentist and real professional sports.

 

[WinterBorn]

To be fair, people are risking life and limb to get to those high tax European countries as well.

Personally, i blame geography.

I think we should work to create safer routes for illegal aliens to come in.

 

[apple0154]

I think we should work to create safer routes for illegal aliens to come in.

And campaign for greater air miles when making purchases.

 

[charver]

I think we should work to create safer routes for illegal aliens to come in.

This is a political minefield.

While, albeit grudgingly, people are somewhat willing to accept genuine asylum seeking migrants there is absolutely no appetite for making it simple for an increase in economic migrants. We already have unfettered freedom of movement for people of all the EU member states, which has provided the 'cheap labour' desired by businesses in a growing economy.

Public opinion in this country is just dead against accepting almost any immigration whatsoever as it is perceived, not incorrectly, as placing huge strains on public services and alienating communities in despair at a lack of jobs and rising prices. Immigration is just a hot button issue at the minute all across Europe.

Maybe it would be more workable in the US, i don't know.

 

[charver]

we'll worry about comparing to England when they get dentist and real professional sports.

Don't forget about the air conditioning.

 

[Damocles]

So the position in summary.

1. We can't tax corporations sufficiently as this will lead to the 'consumer', or ordinary taxpayer, picking up the bill in increased charges.

I guess if you ignore the part about how I said, "I'm not saying they should have holes to hide in," you can then get that from what I posted. Otherwise you are assuming a position that you think I hold regardless of what I say. You can't have very solid argument when one side simply pretends portions of what you say never existed.

2. If we don't tax corporations then the ordinary taxpayer ends up picking up the bill through increased taxation.

This sounds fantastic and when i grow up (this may be some time away) i want to be a corporation, Daddy.

Correct, in the end the "ordinary taxpayer" pays regardless. That was my point. In one scenario you have simply hidden a sales tax in "tax the rich" clothing. "Corporations do not pay taxes, their consumers do" is not just a clever turn of phrase trying to win political points, it is reality. They can only get the money to pay the taxes through higher fees/rates/prices. Such usage taxation, hidden cleverly in "get those rich folk" does not change that sales or usage taxes are the least progressive of all current forms of taxation save one, the Head Tax.

Don't let the government make you think you are "sticking it to the rich" because they tax IKEA, you are simply paying higher prices for your couch. I personally would rather they get most of their money from corporations, not because I think they are "sticking it to the rich" but because if they do it that way they aren't all in my business to the last penny about what I make and do with my money...

 

[Damocles]

Don't forget about the air conditioning.

And large hot water heaters.

 

[charver]

I guess if you ignore the part about how I said, "I'm not saying they should have holes to hide in," you can then get that from what I posted. Otherwise you are assuming a position that you think I hold regardless of what I say. You can't have very solid argument when one side simply pretends portions of what you say never existed.

Of course, you presuppose that had an argument to begin with.

I was surprised as anyone else that i started talking about fiscal policy after coming on here on Saturday night/Sunday morning.

Unlike the vast majority of people here, i don't claim to know anything about economics (in line with most economists as it turns out) and don't pretend to either. See, honest to a fault.

My general position would be - the system doesn't work, i don't know how to fix it and, even if i did suddenly wake up one morning with a calculator in my hand and the overwhelming desire to join the thrilling world of accountancy, nobody would be interested in changing the system anyway.

 

[Damocles]

Of course, you presuppose that had an argument to begin with.

I was surprised as anyone else that i started talking about fiscal policy after coming on here on Saturday night/Sunday morning.

Unlike the vast majority of people here, i don't claim to know anything about economics (in line with most economists as it turns out) and don't pretend to either. See, honest to a fault.

My general position would be - the system doesn't work, i don't know how to fix it and, even if i did suddenly wake up one morning with a calculator in my hand and the overwhelming desire to join the thrilling world of accountancy, nobody would be interested in changing the system anyway.

Which is a bummer. If we want to see a different result, we'll need to do something differently. Clever people like you need to get into the exciting world of accountancy, you'd likely have ideas in a few minutes.