Can Taxing the Rich Erase the Deficit? (job, commission, government)
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.
I think government needs to learn how to live with less, just like I have to.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind paying a little more in taxes IF our representatives showed me that they could act like adults and manage money well, but since they don't, I don't/won't support any tax increases.
I'm with you on this. I'd probably advocate Sweden style socialism if I thought our government would manage the money well. But the evidence is overwhelming that it doesn't do that. Corruption and our lack of an egalitarian mindset pretty much guarantees tax money is not well managed.
There are plenty of rags-to-riches Oprah Winfrey success stories for every Warren Buffet story.
I know a lot of people believe luck plays the biggest role in success. I do not. I agree with the famous quote that "luck is when preparation meets opportunity."
The more prepared, educated, networked you are.... the better your opportunities (not your luck). You become richer because you are becoming a smarter, better networked, more efficient worker/investor not a luckier person.
I think the least successful people tend to associate success more with luck (like winning the lottery). I found this attitude particulary prevalent when I tutored inner city kids. And the more successful people tend to equate success more with hard work and determination.
I believe you make your own luck. I know many of you on this thread probably disagree with me. So be it.
Although nothing is 100%, I generally agree with you. Your conclusion has been backed up by Jean Chatzky's book "The Difference". She studied 500 housholds, isolated about 20 factors related to financial success, and found the more of those 20 qualities people had, the more likely they were to be wealthy.
I DO think family background plays a big role, though. If you don't have parents who teach you the right things, you have a lot more barriers to overcome (and she admits this in the book). However, for those who are open minded and don't just copy the dysfunctional habits of their parents, there are a lot of possibilities.
our lack of an egalitarian mindset pretty much guarantees tax money is not well managed.
You've nailed it. All that is necessary is to make a sea-change in our expectations of what our nationally wealth is supposed to accomplish to in terms of the the commonweal of the republic, and then take the giant step toward economic solvency by determining what Americans can actually afford in terms of their productivity and how that can be steered to bring wellness and dignity to everyone. That's what Sweden did, and they now lead the US in virtually every measure of the human condition.
Have you noticed that "your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" doesn't include many Swedes anymore? A century or so ago, there were enough of them to dominate the population of several midwestern states, but those that stayed home repaired their broken country. It would be worth your while to look and see how they did it.
The American problem that needs to be addressed as a psychiatric one, not economic.
I believe that the expiration of the "biggest tax decrease in history" (per GOP politicians' previous fear of the "biggest tax increase in history") combined with cutting spending would go a long way towards erasing the deficit. In the interest of leaving no "sacred cow" untouched, I'd be open for a "flat cut" from each and every government program from Defense to Social Security. I'll leave it to the politicians to determine the percentage.
had 80% of its supposedly lost revenue amongst the under 250k crowd. They accounted for (using static accounting, the way CBO does) $2.8 trillion over a 10 year span. At some point, once an appropriate level of actual spending cuts occur (in the trillions), it would be wise to let the tax rates increase on ALL income brackets, back to pre Bush levels. Surely, you don't mind the Wal Mart cashier getting hit for an extra 5% on her first $8k taxable, right, $400 or 1.5 weeks of net pay.
The rate pre-Bush first $8k taxable was 15%, under his cuts, it fell to 10%. That 1/3 drop was the biggest benficiary in terms of percentage saved of all tax brackets.
In the interest of leaving no "sacred cow" untouched, I'd be open for a "flat cut" from each and every government program from Defense to Social Security. I'll leave it to the politicians to determine the percentage.
That would be great, provided everybody agrees with you that every single funded program has exactly equal value, and can be cut the same amount with exactly the same impact. It's perfectly OK to throw ten percent of seniors out to beg in the gutters, as long as we make a ten percent reduction in frequency of lawn mowing in national cemeteries.
Hmm, how about closing loopholes, then, so these people do have to pay their fair share? There is no reason rich people should get a pass on taxes while everyone else has to pay, or take the burden of service cuts as the government tries to balance the budget.
Erm......you do know that over 40% of the US population does not pay ANY federal income taxes??????????
The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the federal taxes, top 10% pay 70%.
Erm......you do know that over 40% of the US population does not pay ANY federal income taxes??????????
The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the federal taxes, top 10% pay 70%.
And guess what? One percent of the people take 40% of the national wealth for themselves, ten percent of the people take 70% of the wealth for themselves. And they believe they are entitled to that, without giving anything back. While 40% of the people receive such a small share of the national wealth, that it is a hardship for them to give anything back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
Actually 47% of the US are freeloaders who pay no Federal Income tax.
You must mean those "freeloaders" who are now retired, after spending 45 or 50 years getting up every morning and commuting to their crappy jobs, and then going home and changing the diaper on your poopy ass, and bailing you out of jail on spring break, and paying for part of your college so you can make more than they ever dreamed of?
Or maybe the "freeloaders" who are working at summer jobs to go to college. Those two groups make up a huge majority of the freeloaders that you think ought to pay more taxes, so you can freeload on them, and reduce your own taxes enough to buy a bigger TV than the wimpy 38-incher you've already got, and trade in your shabby 2-year-old Escalade that your wife drives to the hairdresser in.
Last edited by jtur88; 04-27-2011 at 09:38 AM..
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.
