Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
And you confuse people on long term welfare, which is a small percentage, with being the drain on resources. And people that make maybe $150k/yr? That's a strawman argument, the most prominent figures in the "liberal" movement wanted to return to the marginal tax rates under Clinton for people over $250k/yr and an increase in the capital gains tax to pre-Bush levels. Marginal, as in everything up to $250k/yr was taxed at the lower rate. So if the tax rates were 33% and 39% (just for maths sake) and you made $250k + $1 only the $1 would be taxed at the higher rate. It's not "punishing success" its' payment for services rendered, and lightly at that.
~Cheers
Just to add a little bit here. I always hesitate to use labels such as liberal, but here lets call them "the people in power" or at the minimum "people who can make changes to the law"
These people are the first to cry bloody murder when you try to tax one of their dollars. They certainly know how to spend your tax money though.
P.S. the correct order of a society's evolution according to Karl Marx is Capitalism, Communism, and lastly Socialism. America's no where near this and IMO never will be. America will implode & disappear before that happens.
I have a lot more faith in the country than that. Maybe it's because I'm young but I think America's best days are ahead of it.
Ps, I quote both "liberal" and "conservative" because they mean different things in common usage rather than actual meaning. Today's American "Liberals" tend to be socially liberal, fiscally all over the place, and economically conservative. American "Conservatives" tend to be socially conservative (less freedoms), fiscally clueless, and economically liberal.
And you confuse people on long term welfare, which is a small percentage, with being the drain on resources. And people that make maybe $150k/yr? That's a strawman argument, the most prominent figures in the "liberal" movement wanted to return to the marginal tax rates under Clinton for people over $250k/yr and an increase in the capital gains tax to pre-Bush levels. Marginal, as in everything up to $250k/yr was taxed at the lower rate. So if the tax rates were 33% and 39% (just for maths sake) and you made $250k + $1 only the $1 would be taxed at the higher rate. It's not "punishing success" its' payment for services rendered, and lightly at that.
~Cheers
What services are those & how do those services, which we all get (even those who dont pay a dime) cost more simply because a person makes more? I mean, does a store owner charge more to a wealthy customer? Does a laborer get to charge a man more if he's rich? Do utility companies charge more because of wealth? No, if any of these companies tried charging more they would lose the wealthy customers. How is it justifiable to whack the wealthy simply because they are wealthy when they cost society nothing more & often much less than less affluent people. Hell most of them dont even use public schools which is one of the most costly services renderd. They pay more in every way than we do simply by buying more expensive things why punish them with higher income tax rates? Whats the difference between that & charging wealthy people higher sales tax or property tax rate?
Also, if its "payment for services rendered" then how do we justify rendering those same services to people who dont pay?
The simple reality is it is NOT fair. Its an easy simplistic way to try to ballance a budget that cant be ballanced because we are simply spending too much money. Fair would be baseing it on cost to society, not net worth which usually has nothing to do with what that person costs society.
The exception of course being people who work for the state.
I have a lot more faith in the country than that. Maybe it's because I'm young but I think America's best days are ahead of it.
Ps, I quote both "liberal" and "conservative" because they mean different things in common usage rather than actual meaning. Today's American "Liberals" tend to be socially liberal, fiscally all over the place, and economically conservative. American "Conservatives" tend to be socially conservative (less freedoms), fiscally clueless, and economically liberal.
~Cheers
I'd say you are equating liberal with democrat & conservative with republican in that statement. They dont fit so nicely though today. Today we have very very few conservatives in any party. They dont make it because they wont play the tax & spend game of the day. Bush was a liberal just like Obama is a liberal, Rell was more of a deadbeat than anything else but if she was conservative its not nearly enough to override our liberal general assembly.
A real conservative is conservative. Fiscally, socially & otherwise. Conservatives are all for freedom & less regulation. Many liberals get stuck on the gay marriage thing. Thats not about freedom, its about stupidity.
The conept of liberals being economically conservative is rediculous. They spend money like its going out of style & are the cause of our mess. The problem has never been that we dont tax enough. Its whats done with that tax money and liberal spending policies, which have been the norm here in CT for most of my life, are a drain that nobody can plug. Tax the rich more today & then again more tomorrow when we find its still not enough.
I consider myself conservative, I'm for small govt, low taxes & few regulations. I think we should be taxed only as much as needed for a minimum of effective govt.
America's best days may well be ahead of it, but not if we dont break the current trend of spending just to spend & raising taxes after to try & fix things up. Much better to see whats there, only spend that and try to spend LESS each year instead of more.
Both Texas and Connecticut have large budget deficits – should be interesting to see a year from now how each state addresses the problem. Texas’ legislature is dominated by Republicans who have promised not to raise taxes, so they are targeting spending. Texas seems to have at least one fundamental advantage over CT: Their economy is relatively vibrant – if they control spending, they should be able to grow their way out of debt. Maybe.
Texas has a big current deficit. Connecticut's problems are deep and long term, due to a complete failure to fund future pension and medical promises. The result: CT is the 2nd most likely state to go bankrupt: States Most Likely To Go Bankrupt - The Daily Beast
The arrangement of states in the Daily Beast list is different from lists you've seen elsewhere, because they put more into the equation; they say:
... debt is just half the story. The other half of our ranking is split evenly between each state’s percent of unfunded pension obligations, and unfunded health care obligations for retirees, based on a study by the Pew Center on the States.
Connecticut's absolute neglect of funding public pension and health care obligations are a huge factor in this ranking.
I would expect comments like this to come up. The rich people haven't created my existence. If they create so much, why have they not generated any more jobs for Conn in the last 20 years?
Yes they have. They are the people who fund your society and create your jobs.
Why have they not created any more jobs here? Oh that's easy. 1. Most entreprenuers have pulled back to see what the government is going to legislate to them. Things are changing rapidly and policies are being proposed and talked about.
2. They put their money elsewhere. Rich people are not stupid people. This state is NOT a good investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers
Someone has posted a link to some statistics that said just that. This is called envy of the rich or in older times envy of the burgeios. The rich have been very keen cultivating this envy. Why tax the rich man when I may become rich myself someday.
Wrong. I don't care to be "rich". I care more about freedom and liberty for everyone - even the evil rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers
They like to spew that the top 5% pay 90% of the taxes. What they don't supply is what percentage of their income did they pay in taxes. That is where the truth lies. Middle class and even working class people are paying a higher percentage than any rich person is. That is the real travesty in America.
"spew"? Really? "spew"? I'm all for a flat tax. What I find laughable is people getting back more than they paid in income tax. The tax system is becoming a redistributive channel.
The middle and working class people would faint if they saw how much they WOULD be paying if those "evil" rich people were not footing most of the bill.
BTW that number is not 90%. The top 10% pay 69%, the top 25% pay 86% which BTW the top 25% is a number less than $100,000.
Complain about the welfare mom getting $2,000 a month. Where the rich man is paying 10-20% of his income in taxes. You and most of America have been bamboozled.
No sir, you are the one who has been bamboozled. It's a numbers game. Someone makeing 40K at 25% is NOT paying 10K in taxes. It will end up being about $6100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers
One problem is that the general education level of America is very low. Most people (I would say about 90%) do not have a basic understanding of math, economics, or taxation. If that level would rise we mite see some change regarding taxation and economics. The people in control know this and cultivate it. They love to see the lower classes fighting among themselves. It diverts attention away from their raping of America.
Yes we all can be elite liberals now can we.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers
And if you are curious to know America is currently about 75% capitalism and 25% socialism. You can figure this out easily by looking at the budget (or even the GDP) and subtracting payments for "social services" from the total.
Really? Considering 47% of our national budget in 2010 was for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - SOCIAL programs...I would disgree and say it's much higher. 47% is obscene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers
The "gini coefficient" may interest you as well. Its a way to measure the gap between the poor and the rich of a society. America's coefficient has steadily risen since 1980. Which also corresponds with the implementation of Reaganomics a.k.a. supply side economics. I think 30 years of data is sufficient to say Reaganomics isn't working.
Again, simply number manipulation (The very thing you seem to think we can't figure out on our own). If the "poor" earn 3% more and the rich have earned 5% more, that makes it seem like the "gap" is widening, but the reality is all have benefitted.
In your world, everyone should earn the same, look the same and live the same. NO THANK YOU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers
It may also interest you to know that Lyndon B. Johnson declared war on poverty after JFK was assassinated. I've seen news clips of it. We've been fighting poverty for 40+ years now and I don't think we've won.
And 40 years later, they keep thinking the government has the solution. It's madness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers
P.S. the correct order of a society's evolution according to Karl Marx is Capitalism, Communism, and lastly Socialism. America's no where near this and IMO never will be. America will implode & disappear before that happens.
Who cares what Marx thinks. I don't. I prefer to read the wisdom of our founders who created the greatest nation on the earth. I would recommend you read The 5000 Year Leap. Great book.
You are still afflicted with "envy of the rich" I could never understand this affliction nor the belief "why tax the rich man, when I may become rich myself someday"
I don't want everyone to earn the same amount of salary. This is another fallacy that the rich have cultivated for years. "Higher taxes = socialism" This is akin to the doctors years ago who were spreading propaganding equating universal health care = socialism.
I want everyone to pay their fair amount of taxes. Which the rich for at least the last 10 years have not. I can give you one very simple illustration of this.
The CEO of Apple Steve Jobs is famous for accepting a salary of $1 per year. Now Steve is not poor, so he earns money somehow. How does he earn\receive that money, and what rate is it taxed at? And how much did he pay in social security tax & medicare tax?
I know the answers, but would like to know what you think.
I can't understand why there is even a debate as to who should pay more taxes. We ALL pay too much in taxes! That is except for those who've learned how to work the system. People like my inlaws who work little enough that they actually get more back in taxes than they pay. It's sickening.
But for the rest of the state, middle class to upper class we pay too much in taxes for what we receive. Are we supposed to believe that other states lower taxes don't have police and fireman, don't have public schools, don't get the roads paved? Come on, wake up Connecticut and realize when you're being hosed on taxes. Stop defending the amount of money we are taxed.
The middle class may pay a lower percentage of taxes but they feel it more. The wealthy who may make 2 million a year but pay half of that in taxes may feel it less, but it's no less disgusting. We all have a right to demand the state trims it's budget. Not try to figure out which people are more deserving of a tax break.
What amazes me, is if a person came on this board complaining that they can't pay their bills, wouldn't the first thing you would tell them to do it attempt to trim their budget and cut excess spending? Then once they've trimmed the fat off their budget, if they still can't make ends meet, then they need to go out and look for a 2nd job to bring in higher income. But the first step to balancing a budget is to limit the payables. Then work on getting more receivables.
The tri-state area doesn't know how to do that. When money gets low, just demand more taxes. And look how well it's worked out for them! NJ/CT are wealthy, densely populated states who pay more in taxes than the rest of the country. But both states are broke. Good job!
Many liberals get stuck on the gay marriage thing. Thats not about freedom, its about stupidity.
Stupidity? Hmmm can you clarify?
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
