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 have been listening to C-SPan lately, and I'm a little annoyed about the term some politicians are bantering about: raising taxes on the rich.
Are they talking about the Bush tax cuts? The ones that were supposed to expire last year or something? I'm not rich, but I benefited from those those cuts, and I still say let them expire. The government needs the money, and I'm tired of both sides wasting time and avoiding making cuts.
I had some preferred stocks, and the way I benefited was by the 15% rate on certain dividends. One of my stocks had like a 9% rate of return. Woo , so I pretty much got free money every month, even taking into consideration the hundred or so dollars I paid to get the stocks.
Normally the capital gains would be 20%, or something like that, but because of the tax cuts, I and other investors who got dividends only had to pay 15%. What's the big deal about letting the cuts expire? Rich people aren't going to go broke.
If you get income from investments, it's free money. I really enjoyed it while I could. Really, just watching money accumulate as I did... nothing. And I got it every month! Having to pay lower taxes was just icing, but even with higher taxes, buying those stocks is still worth it for the rate of return...and having to do nothing for the money.
Anyway that's my attempt to put a face on the BS about the Bush-era tax cuts. Nobody's going to drop dead if they expire. The years of lower taxes were icing. I think it is a joke if they can't balance the budget or whatever the he** it is they're doing in Washington.
this is a huge debate that i won't go deep into because it's a waste of time. but i heard something funny from an interview about a new book by Fareed Zakaria...he pointed out that if congress does NOTHING, which it's very good at, and just let the tax cuts expire, that would erase $3.9T in debt over the next 10 years (i may not have the exact quote right, but that's about it). that would put us well on our way to closing the debt, and most people middle and upper brackets wouldn't drastically change their spending habits...as evidenced by our spending habits in the 90s before those tax cuts existed. it was a temporary policy that was supposed to expire. pile on top of that a decade of wars paid for with borrowed money, and that makes up a large sum of our deficit spending and of our national debt. cuts to spending need to be made, but simple math proves that that's not all that needs to be done.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,884,604 times
Reputation: 2501
Who should pay -- the poor, the middle-class? No. The rich should pay and it doesn't hurt them ONE BIT. They'll probably find a way to escape the tax hike with tax accountants anyways. Stop cutting services and making this country even more pathetic, quality-wise, than it already is. A flight to quality will be the next revolution this country experiences, IMO, if it wants to compete as a global leader with China, GB, etc. Big-business needs to be taxed MUCH more as they are usually the ones who take advantage of the average American at the cost of either the customer or the product.
this is a huge debate that i won't go deep into because it's a waste of time. but i heard something funny from an interview about a new book by Fareed Zakaria...he pointed out that if congress does NOTHING, which it's very good at, and just let the tax cuts expire, that would erase $3.9T in debt over the next 10 years (i may not have the exact quote right, but that's about it). that would put us well on our way to closing the debt, and most people middle and upper brackets wouldn't drastically change their spending habits...as evidenced by our spending habits in the 90s before those tax cuts existed. it was a temporary policy that was supposed to expire. pile on top of that a decade of wars paid for with borrowed money, and that makes up a large sum of our deficit spending and of our national debt. cuts to spending need to be made, but simple math proves that that's not all that needs to be done.
thats absolute bs. the estimated cost of the bush cuts through 2010 is $2 trillion total and that is assuming people wouldnt change their actions because of the cuts, which makes it the high end.
it doesnt matter. the "rich" pay most of the taxes already. they shouldnt have to take on a bigger burden because the government spends an insane amount of money.
I have been listening to C-SPan lately, and I'm a little annoyed about the term some politicians are bantering about: raising taxes on the rich.
Are they talking about the Bush tax cuts? The ones that were supposed to expire last year or something? I'm not rich, but I benefited from those those cuts, and I still say let them expire. The government needs the money, and I'm tired of both sides wasting time and avoiding making cuts.
I had some preferred stocks, and the way I benefited was by the 15% rate on certain dividends. One of my stocks had like a 9% rate of return. Woo , so I pretty much got free money every month, even taking into consideration the hundred or so dollars I paid to get the stocks.
Normally the capital gains would be 20%, or something like that, but because of the tax cuts, I and other investors who got dividends only had to pay 15%. What's the big deal about letting the cuts expire? Rich people aren't going to go broke.
If you get income from investments, it's free money. I really enjoyed it while I could. Really, just watching money accumulate as I did... nothing. And I got it every month! Having to pay lower taxes was just icing, but even with higher taxes, buying those stocks is still worth it for the rate of return...and having to do nothing for the money.
Anyway that's my attempt to put a face on the BS about the Bush-era tax cuts. Nobody's going to drop dead if they expire. The years of lower taxes were icing. I think it is a joke if they can't balance the budget or whatever the he** it is they're doing in Washington.
Nobody is going to raise taxes on the rich. I expect that Obama will bend to the Republicans on the debt ceiling and he will offer moderate cuts in the military (soldiers not hardware), education and Medicare by raising the age to 67 and switching to a private "premium support" system. The rich can defend themselves in Washington. Old people, children and poor people cannot.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,260,275 times
Reputation: 57825
It's not fair for people that happen to have a lot of money have to support those with less. If taxes were the same percentage regardless of income the rich would still be doing more than their fair share by buying expensive items
(sales tax) and homes (property tax). Those things they buy are also keeping other people in jobs. Tax them more and they will find more ways to shelter their money, they can afford good tax attorneys, off shore accounts,
or even moving out of the country. The unemployed and underemployed who are using the government services paid for by taxes are contributing very little in tax money, so the real burden is continuing to squeeze the shrinking middle class who can no longer afford to spend due to the taxes
increasing along with the cost of living. The real problem is the federal government spending on things they have no business doing Now
they are spending more bailing out states that can't manage their own finances, but the real reason is control. No federal money comes without a price, meet their regulations or lose it. Once the states become dependent on federal money they can't afford to give it up and lose local control.
Or we could just frame it this simple way. In 2001 we had our last surplus. Taxes were 20% of GDP roughly. They stand at 14% now. What changed there? Bush tax cuts.
Spending today not counting costs to fight wars is roughly the same inflation adjusted.
So end war spending, repeal tax cuts, continue to keep spending about the same with inflation adjustments and you get to a deficit of roughly $100 billion or less than 1% of GDP.
How do the Democrats miss this simple argument and sell it to the people is beyond me. If you polled voters and asked what you think about this strategy framed in this manner and I'd guess you would see 65% approval.
That done, you can move onto the messy issues of future entitlements.
Or we could just frame it this simple way. In 2001 we had our last surplus. Taxes were 20% of GDP roughly. They stand at 14% now. What changed there? Bush tax cuts.
oh yeah, thats all that changed. you realize the debt increase by about $4 trillion over the past 3-4 years right?
when bush was president, the debt increased by about $600 billion a year (too much) but now its increasing by almost $2 trillion a year.
I don't think anybody who got the temporary reduction in capital gains taxes is going to complain if they go back to the original level. Why are they making it sound like rich people...oh sorry "Job creators" are going to freak if the tax cuts expire?
If you have several million in capital and get let's say $200,000 a year in capital gains without having to work, you used to only pay 20% in taxes, max (I believe). You know, if you have a good accountant, or if you rebalanced to take advantage of the lower rates you pay even less. Somebody who works to earn that income probably pays more taxes for the same amount of money. Not to mention the gas they buy to go to work etc... Let's be honest...the middle class also creates jobs.
BTW the "wealthy" pay more taxes because they have more money. Way more money. I think the percentage they pay is still smaller. As always, it is good to be rich. Anyway, if you guys care, write your congress person. I doubt they'll do anything, though.
The fact is that government is a burden on the taxpayers.
The question is who is in the best position to shoulder the burden.
In the past 30 years, the wealthy have received massive tax breaks that have lowered their brackets to historical lows. The result has been a decline in the real earnings of the working class.
In the 1930's when the country was serious about turning the economy around, one of the first things they did was raise the tax rates on the wealthy. What followed was 40 years of prosperity. Of course, there were other factors involved, but the tax system allowed a substantial increase in the standard of living for the majority.
Class warfare is a constant battle. It exists regardless of our recognition of its existence. Today it goes by different names like Free Trade, Outsourcing, and Global economy.
Regardless of what you call it, the result is always the same; manipulate the countries policies to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the people.
It is now time for the ignorant masses to understand that they are in a battle and that unless they stand and fight the wealthy will enslave them.
So am I for transferring the burden of government to the wealthy. Let me think..... hell yes!
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.
, so I pretty much got free money every month, even taking into consideration the hundred or so dollars I paid to get the stocks.
Anyway, if you guys care, write your congress person. I doubt they'll do anything, though.
