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.
We get the money through a combination of increased to 90% the income tax on the top 5%, countervailing tariffs set to eliminate the import price advantages due to labor, environmental, subsidy and currency manipulations and excise taxes on legalized drugs. We obtain more money by applying individual tax rates to corporations that considered themselves people. We also cut most of the tax breaks currently abused by the oil and coal industries among others.
We save money by no longer being the thugs for OPEC and getting out of the out myriad foreign entanglements. Considering all of these we will have the money for the government programs that support the mass of American small businesses and workers.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Yeah..but that would only work for 1 year because once you took 100% of their salaries what's left ? Now they are bankrupt and homeless.
It is only extremists who believe that 0% or 100% is the solution. Are you one of them? You sure love to bring up 100% tax on the rich. Is there no sense in using logic anymore? And then you go talking about 2012 election. When did YOU stop worrying about elections? If the premise of participating in these discussions is to use logic and look at possible solutions, DO THAT. Now, why do you feel that Clinton era tax rates were worse than Bush era tax rates? Were the tax revenues falling after Clinton raise taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
bush was more of a liberal(big spender) than clinton was
clinton/newt did at least cut the government..and came close to having a surplus
Bush was only a bit less liberal than Reagan, considering that both went about cutting taxes (and the more liberalism of Reagan shows up when he recognized a problem and approved tax increases/closing tax loop holes which Bush never concerned self with), both preached Christian values, promoted military spending and increased government. So, Bush not only increased spending, he pushed for a private enterprise takeover of the country's interests (like Reagan), he also pushed and implemented policies that reduced revenues.
we dont need to find more money..we need to cut costs
spending has more than DOUBLED in the last 10 years
bush was more of a liberal(big spender) than clinton was
clinton/newt did at least cut the government..and came close to having a surplus
You can try and twist it, but when it comes to outrageous pork barrel spending, the right take the cake and Bush was the epitome of far right fiscal spending. Clinton got the economy booming by following traditional progressive fiscal stances which has been proven to be successful. Fair tax rates, controlled spending and focus on expanding small business. Today's democrats, independent and libertarian also are trying to restore fiscal sanity like Clinton, but the right refuse to stop their outrageous spending and government handouts to big oil and the rich.
It is only extremists who believe that 0% or 100% is the solution. Are you one of them? You sure love to bring up 100% tax on the rich. Is there no sense in using logic anymore? And then you go talking about 2012 election. When did YOU stop worrying about elections? If the premise of participating in these discussions is to use logic and look at possible solutions, DO THAT. Now, why do you feel that Clinton era tax rates were worse than Bush era tax rates? Were the tax revenues falling after Clinton raise taxes?
he is showing you an example ,scrambled brains
the FACT is that back when the top rate (for those in the 50's making MORE than 350k(that would be about 3 million today)) was around 90%, the majority didnt pay even close to that..and that TODAY the EFFECTICE rate is higher than it was then
the other FACT is taxing income is just stupi.. look at warren buffet...billioniare..his INCOME...only 100k a year.....yet he will SPEND over 900k a year(and many years much more than that)...that's why we should stop the income tax, and tax consumption
yes with more loophole then we have today..infact the ACTUAL rate (adjusted rate) is higher today than back then
state , local, property taxes all are much higher today
and
the top rate in the 1950's was to the rich..as defined in 1950's money of those making more than 350k...in todays money that would be those making more than 3 million...not the 200k that liberlas want to call rich
So you advocate raising the rates on those earning more than $3 million/yr?
You can try and twist it, but when it comes to outrageous pork barrel spending, the right take the cake and Bush was the epitome of far right fiscal spending. Clinton got the economy booming by following traditional progressive fiscal stances which has been proven to be successful. Fair tax rates, controlled spending and focus on expanding small business. Today's democrats, independent and libertarian also are trying to restore fiscal sanity like Clinton, but the right refuse to stop their outrageous spending and government handouts to big oil and the rich.
oh bs
I say stop all handouts..to include YOUR demon the evil oil companies(btw they are international companies, not just american companies)
eliminate welfare, start workfare
cut the spending
bush/and obusha have spend like the progressives they are..we need to cut spending
So you advocate raising the rates on those earning more than $3 million/yr?
yes
but the liberals want to say a workingclass couple like a teacher earning 125k and a suffolk county cop earning 125k are rich just because thier household earns 250k
raise the rates on those earning over 3 million...i would be fine with that
the FACT is that back when the top rate (for those in the 50's making MORE than 350k(that would be about 3 million today)) was around 90%, the majority didnt pay even close to that..and that TODAY the EFFECTICE rate is higher than it was then
the other FACT is taxing income is just stupi.. look at warren buffet...billioniare..his INCOME...only 100k a year.....yet he will SPEND over 900k a year(and many years much more than that)...that's why we should stop the income tax, and tax consumption
Scrambled brains... now that was funny. Did you hear that a lot?
Anyway, do you understand what top marginal rate entails? I will help you with a hint. Here was the advertised impact of the democratic plan (letting Bush tax cuts expire for top 5%) versus the republican plan (Bush rules!).
Now, the democratic plan would have raised the top marginal rate to Clinton era. So, why do you see them still seeing a tax cut? Think about it and tell us what conclusions you arrive at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
yes
but the liberals want to say a workingclass couple like a teacher earning 125k and a suffolk county cop earning 125k are rich just because thier household earns 250k
raise the rates on those earning over 3 million...i would be fine with that
Unfortunately for them, the US constitution requires the federal government to impose a standard tax rate across all locales. But in any case, $250K is well above the average household national income (and likely in their own locale as well). BTW, after you're done thinking about top marginal rates, do try to calculate the impact of tax rate on $250K-$300K under Clinton tax rates compared to Bush tax rates and let me know what you find.
Newsflash: Obama inherited the problems from Bush and hasn't created any.
Why should everyone share in budget cuts when for the last ten years the rich got the bulk of the benefits and have been the ONLY group with income growth? Why should the top richest people in the country pay a 16.6% tax-rate when most of the middle-class pay ~30%? If you are saying that we should all share in the pain fairly, start there.
1. The Bush economy was fine until the democratic congress gained control in 2006.
2. Congress controls spending, and spend they did.
3. Obama has created many problems-
a. increasing the debt from $8.6 trillion to $14.3 trillion
b. wasting nearly a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus
c. failing to modify corporate tax structure
d. adding Obamacare to impair job growth and add to the debt
e. failure to expand domestic energy exploration
Obama is president and the economy is HIS PROBLEM, not George Bush's problem.
4. 16.6% tax rate???????????? You are referring to people who live not off income or dividends, but simply via long term capital gains. That is a small fraction of the economy. Again, if you tax "the rich" at 100% by enslaving them, you only raise an addtional $900 billion.
5. With federal, state, medicare, and social security taxes have 50% deducted from my monthly check for taxes and end up paying about 40% of my income after all my deductions.
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.
Is there no sense in using logic anymore? And then you go talking about 2012 election. When did YOU stop worrying about elections? If the premise of participating in these discussions is to use logic and look at possible solutions, DO THAT. Now, why do you feel that Clinton era tax rates were worse than Bush era tax rates? Were the tax revenues falling after Clinton raise taxes?
