U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-13-2011, 10:31 AM
 
736 posts, read 803,178 times
Reputation: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-SawDude View Post
Of course increased taxes will impact revenues. It's silly to claim otherwise. It's also silly to claim that I or anyone else is suggesting that only raising taxes is the solution. I've said, at least two previous times in this thread alone, that if we're seriously targeting debt reduction, we have to work on spending cuts AND tax increases. But there is a serious contingent of folks, especially those in the House of Representatives, who refuse to consider any sort of revenue increase. Such an attitude is fundamentally unserious about the debt, IMO, and is instead concerned with shrinking the size of government, strictly for the purpose of satisfying an anti-government ideology.

You just refuse to see that the problem is and will always be SPENDING until the federal government stops spending more than takes in. It does not matter how much revenue increases as long as the government spending far exceeds that revenue.

You could take every dime of taxable income from the top 1% ($380,000 & up (2008 data)) and the $938 billion would not cover the deficit for ONE year at current spending levels. This class war rhetoric nothing more than a clever tool by the left that would have no impact on our debt.

Review & Outlook: Where the Tax Money Is - WSJ.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2011, 01:56 AM
 
10,412 posts, read 6,062,885 times
Reputation: 5091
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2rescue View Post
This class war rhetoric nothing more than a clever tool by the left that would have no impact on our debt.
Give me a break, both sides engage in "class war rhetoric" and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 03:26 AM
 
Location: Home of the Braves
675 posts, read 295,301 times
Reputation: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2rescue View Post
The piece loses a bit of credibility in the first sentence:

Quote:
A dominant theme of President Obama's budget speech last Wednesday was that our fiscal problems would vanish if only the wealthiest Americans were asked "to pay a little more."
Of course, Obama didn't suggest that raising taxes on high incomes, by itself, would eliminate our deficits. He's suggested it should be part of the solution, to lessen the severity of necessary cuts, and the public overwhelmingly agrees with him. You don't do your cause any favors by pretending otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 05:42 AM
 
Location: East Cobb
2,205 posts, read 4,145,933 times
Reputation: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H View Post
The piece loses a bit of credibility in the first sentence:



Of course, Obama didn't suggest that raising taxes on high incomes, by itself, would eliminate our deficits. He's suggested it should be part of the solution, to lessen the severity of necessary cuts, and the public overwhelmingly agrees with him. You don't do your cause any favors by pretending otherwise.
Furthermore, for crying out loud, Warren Buffett strongly agrees: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...&seid=auto

I just don't get why Congress and all the "Joe the Plumber" types want the rest of us to bear a bigger tax burden than the wealthy. It doesn't create jobs and it's just not in the best interest of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 07:34 AM
 
903 posts, read 863,039 times
Reputation: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2rescue View Post
You just refuse to see that the problem is and will always be SPENDING until the federal government stops spending more than takes in. It does not matter how much revenue increases as long as the government spending far exceeds that revenue.

You could take every dime of taxable income from the top 1% ($380,000 & up (2008 data)) and the $938 billion would not cover the deficit for ONE year at current spending levels. This class war rhetoric nothing more than a clever tool by the left that would have no impact on our debt.

Review & Outlook: Where the Tax Money Is - WSJ.com
For the upteenth time, what part of the phrase "revenues and spending" doesn't focus on the need to cut spending? The conservative talking point that "only increasing revenues won't solve anything" is a straw man. It's irrelevant whether or not taking all the income of the top 1% pays off our budget, because not a single person on the planet is proposing that. You're attempting to dismiss the notion that taxes matter at all here, which is fundamentally an extreme and economically unsound point of view.

If taxes didn't matter, why not cut them to 0%? Because there is always a certain level of spending required for non-anarchistic society to function. And taxes are necessary to pay for that spending. Pretending like spending is the sole solution here is just ludicrous. We're having a debate about what the proper levels of taxation and spending should be to meet our past obligations (debt) and future budgets. I personally think the wealthiest should pay a slightly higher percentage than the poor. It's laughable to call such a position "class warfare," but good luck with that. (BTW, I guess billionaire Warren Buffett wants class warfare as well, since he thinks the superwealthy aren't paying nearly enough in taxes right now: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...goJeCCLcFOOFEw)

To link this back up to the thread topic--on a more local scale, Atlanta and its suburbs are going to have to figure these issues out as well. The city will benefit immensely from targeted spending cuts (the pension reform was a good start) but also some tax increases (which look to all be sales tax proposals so far). If we want to continue to attract people into the city, we'll need to be smart about balancing both sides. If it's just all about spending cuts and tax cuts, we aren't going to get the necessary infrastructure to attract residents and employers to the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 AM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top