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.
In the era of Grover Norquist and the Tea Party,NAFTA, DOMA, Bush's tax cuts and Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck/Coulter, you're kidding me right?
Keep talking about the Bush tax cuts that Obama talked the Congress into allowing to stay around another year. You really aren't aware enough to see that the tax cuts you are talking are now the Bush-Obama cuts. Yep, he didn't even try to raise the taxes on the rich, just talked a lot until the time came. It is so hard to see for libs so I guess you just can't see what he did to you people.
What does that mean? The idiot liberals are trying to do an end run around what was REALLY taxed back then to what they want taxed today... bottom line, the liberals are liars.. and thieves..
What does that mean? The idiot liberals are trying to do an end run around what was REALLY taxed back then to what they want taxed today... bottom line, the liberals are liars.. and thieves..
Well, my look at it suggests it was higher then, for all classes of society. And we balanced the budget and we did not descend into socialist dictatorship. Going back to those levels, with some intelligent, bipartisan cutting would probably balance the budget again. The Bush presidency kicked in unsustainably low tax rates, along with a huge ramp up in spending. A disaster ensued. The chart does not include Obama-it stops at 2007, but I suspect he maintained the same disastrous tax rates. But if Obama tried to actually balance the budget by dumping those tax cuts, he would be called a socialist. Just ridiculous.
Keep talking about the Bush tax cuts that Obama talked the Congress into allowing to stay around another year. You really aren't aware enough to see that the tax cuts you are talking are now the Bush-Obama cuts. Yep, he didn't even try to raise the taxes on the rich, just talked a lot until the time came. It is so hard to see for libs so I guess you just can't see what he did to you people.
So, he kept taxes low in the depths of the recession. How is it that he is the evil socialist demon then?
Since the 1980s, it seems to me that we have seen a relentless series of tax cuts of various types, but especially for those at the top. Now that we are running a deficit, folks who want to balance the budget with some revenue options (back to, say, 1990s tax and spending levels) are considered socialists and communists. How can after 15 steps to the right 2 steps to the left be a socialist revolution?
My wife thinks it is pure political mud slinging (say the most outrageous thing you can get by with and hope it sticks). Is she right?
This thread is long on silliness and short on facts.
The IRS reports that there were 236,883 tax-payers in 2009 who earned more than $1 Million. They earned a total of $727 Billion.
Let's tax that $727 Billion at 91%, then:
$727 Billion * 0.91 = $661 Billion.
In 2010, Social Security paid out $701 Billion in benefits, so taxing "the rich" at 91% wouldn't even pay for 1 year's worth of Social Security.
Do you dispute that?
If so, then please show your math. In other words, quit talkin' and start chalkin'.
Let's look at Social Security a little more closely. Many people are under the false and misguided impression that eliminating the cap on earnings will solve the problems of Social Security (and Medicare).
Let's look at that. Calling the cap $110,000 for easier math, those 236,883 people pay 6.2% on $110,000 or:
$110,000 * 6.02% * 236,883 = $1,568,639,226 or $1.5 Billion
If we eliminate the cap then:
$727 Billion * 6.02% = 43,765,400,000 or $42.7 Billion.
There's your Shipment of Fail.
$42.7 Billion will not fix the problem when the problem is a short-fall of $350 Billion. So is going to choke up the other $307 Billion. And how are you going to do that? When the stupid FICA tax holiday ends and the rate goes back to 6.02% you'll have to raise the rate to 9.02% and then you'll raise the FICA rate 0.6% every year through the year 2040.
Uh, well, I'm just assuming you want Social Security, and that you want more than $790/month. How much will a one-bedroom rent for in 2040 where you live? If you own your home lock, stock and barrel, how much do you think your property taxes, utilities, cable, water, natural gas for heat, etc etc will be?
How are the States going to collect sales tax on $42.7 Billion when that money is going straight to Social Security?
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you State doesn't need no stinking sales tax receipts, right? Whenever your city, county or State needs money, it just falls out of the sky, doesn't it?
Look at the lay-offs and closing for March, April and May. There are no school districts, cities, counties or States laying off or terminating employees, correct?
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't raise taxes, I'm simply proving that it is not a panacea; that it will not solve your problems; and that it could make things worse; and create more problems, especially at the State and local levels.
"Austerity" is a reality. At this point, you can voluntarily implement "austerity" plans to stave off financial disasters in the future, or you can do nothing at all and then "austerity" will be forced upon you involuntarily whether you want it or not. If you people cannot handle even mild Cost Inflation without the hand-wringing and gouging out of eyes and pulling out of hair and gnashing of teeth and putting on sack-cloth, then I don't know what you're going to do when Real Inflation is running at 35%-45% annually about 12 year from now.
I imagine there will be a "Real Inflation Sticky Thread" at the top of this forum for all of the weak-knee'd whiners. "My god, my natural gas bill, electric bill, cable bill, cell-phone bill, internet bill, auto insurance, home-owner's insurance, trash-pick-up, water bill, etc etc etc etc etc etc has doubled!" Um, no kidding. Which part of Real Inflation did you not understand?
Since the 1980s, it seems to me that we have seen a relentless series of tax cuts of various types, but especially for those at the top. Now that we are running a deficit, folks who want to balance the budget with some revenue options (back to, say, 1990s tax and spending levels) are considered socialists and communists. How can after 15 steps to the right 2 steps to the left be a socialist revolution?
My wife thinks it is pure political mud slinging (say the most outrageous thing you can get by with and hope it sticks). Is she right?
we dont have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. if we were to cut spending back to 1990 levels, we would be running surpluses every year at the federal level. liberals complained bitterly about all the spending that bush did, and yet they dont say a word against the profligate spending that obama has done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
What we have now is socialism for the rich; many are paying less federal tax than their own staff. Why would they want to give up a good thing?
rubbish. how do you figure the top 1% paying 35% of the taxes collected by the federal government being less than the 3% the bottom 51% pay? the reality is that the rich not only pay more taxes dollar wise than everyone else, they also pay a higher effective tax rate than everyone else.
Since the 1980s, it seems to me that we have seen a relentless series of tax cuts of various types, but especially for those at the top. Now that we are running a deficit, folks who want to balance the budget with some revenue options (back to, say, 1990s tax and spending levels) are considered socialists and communists. How can after 15 steps to the right 2 steps to the left be a socialist revolution?
My wife thinks it is pure political mud slinging (say the most outrageous thing you can get by with and hope it sticks). Is she right?
60s had one in a hundred working for government. Today we have one in nine.
Fire the government worker back down to one in a hundred and we'll see what out tax need is then.
We also went from caring for the elderly and disabled to caring for anything with the US Treasury... Put that back as well.
Do that and give us a call, anything else as it is would be the cancer of socialism within our system eating out country from the inside out.
This thread is long on silliness and short on facts.
The IRS reports that there were 236,883 tax-payers in 2009 who earned more than $1 Million. They earned a total of $727 Billion.
Let's tax that $727 Billion at 91%, then:
$727 Billion * 0.91 = $661 Billion.
In 2010, Social Security paid out $701 Billion in benefits, so taxing "the rich" at 91% wouldn't even pay for 1 year's worth of Social Security.
Do you dispute that?
If so, then please show your math. In other words, quit talkin' and start chalkin'.
Let's look at Social Security a little more closely. Many people are under the false and misguided impression that eliminating the cap on earnings will solve the problems of Social Security (and Medicare).
Let's look at that. Calling the cap $110,000 for easier math, those 236,883 people pay 6.2% on $110,000 or:
$110,000 * 6.02% * 236,883 = $1,568,639,226 or $1.5 Billion
If we eliminate the cap then:
$727 Billion * 6.02% = 43,765,400,000 or $42.7 Billion.
There's your Shipment of Fail.
$42.7 Billion will not fix the problem when the problem is a short-fall of $350 Billion. So is going to choke up the other $307 Billion. And how are you going to do that? When the stupid FICA tax holiday ends and the rate goes back to 6.02% you'll have to raise the rate to 9.02% and then you'll raise the FICA rate 0.6% every year through the year 2040.
Uh, well, I'm just assuming you want Social Security, and that you want more than $790/month. How much will a one-bedroom rent for in 2040 where you live? If you own your home lock, stock and barrel, how much do you think your property taxes, utilities, cable, water, natural gas for heat, etc etc will be?
How are the States going to collect sales tax on $42.7 Billion when that money is going straight to Social Security?
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you State doesn't need no stinking sales tax receipts, right? Whenever your city, county or State needs money, it just falls out of the sky, doesn't it?
Look at the lay-offs and closing for March, April and May. There are no school districts, cities, counties or States laying off or terminating employees, correct?
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't raise taxes, I'm simply proving that it is not a panacea; that it will not solve your problems; and that it could make things worse; and create more problems, especially at the State and local levels.
"Austerity" is a reality. At this point, you can voluntarily implement "austerity" plans to stave off financial disasters in the future, or you can do nothing at all and then "austerity" will be forced upon you involuntarily whether you want it or not. If you people cannot handle even mild Cost Inflation without the hand-wringing and gouging out of eyes and pulling out of hair and gnashing of teeth and putting on sack-cloth, then I don't know what you're going to do when Real Inflation is running at 35%-45% annually about 12 year from now.
I imagine there will be a "Real Inflation Sticky Thread" at the top of this forum for all of the weak-knee'd whiners. "My god, my natural gas bill, electric bill, cable bill, cell-phone bill, internet bill, auto insurance, home-owner's insurance, trash-pick-up, water bill, etc etc etc etc etc etc has doubled!" Um, no kidding. Which part of Real Inflation did you not understand?
Relentlessly...
Mircea
I have no problem with austerity. However, I think a revenue and cutting solution is needed. And saying that does not make me a socialist.
I am well aware that SS is going through the roof, but I don't get how cutting taxes helps us to deal with it. It seems to me that raising taxes NOW is a start, along with cutting. But the GOP is so enslaved to Grover Norquist, that applying simple arithmetic has become a communist plot..
Since the 1980s, it seems to me that we have seen a relentless series of tax cuts of various types, but especially for those at the top. Now that we are running a deficit, folks who want to balance the budget with some revenue options (back to, say, 1990s tax and spending levels) are considered socialists and communists. How can after 15 steps to the right 2 steps to the left be a socialist revolution?
My wife thinks it is pure political mud slinging (say the most outrageous thing you can get by with and hope it sticks). Is she right?
Reagan slashed taxes, but to balance things out he also slashed loop-holes, but when Obama said he wanted to do the same by cutting corporate tax from 35% to 25%, while removing loop-holes, he was called an anti-business socialist who just wants to remove loop-holes to make it more difficult for corporations to succeed.
Reagan slashed taxes, but to balance things out he also slashed loop-holes, but when Obama said he wanted to do the same by cutting corporate tax from 35% to 25%, while removing loop-holes, he was called an anti-business socialist who just wants to remove loop-holes to make it more difficult for corporations to succeed.
Well perhaps the Reagan Revolution is responsible. All that money piling up at the top has fueled a tsunami of rightwing propaganda. Now, just running our own country with reference to facts and basic math, not antitax pledges, has become a sinister plot.
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.
