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.
Slightly different climate right now, I don't understand some of these arguments that there too many people on social support programs, what do expect when we had one of the greatest downturns in history
If that were the only cause, I would agree. But the overriding problem we have is that those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times that of those who don't. Why? Because government welfare programs PAY them to do nothing but breed. That means the size of the welfare class will eventually eclipse that of everyone else. I'm sure you can see how that's not financially sustainable. Who's going to pay for all their welfare benefits?
Slightly different climate right now, I don't understand some of these arguments that there too many people on social support programs, what do expect when we had one of the greatest downturns in history
I think what you saying is that when there is a great economic downturn, why should it be surprising that more people are getting government help? Apart from the 1930s, there aren't masses going hungry on the streets -- and that's a good thing.
If that were the only cause, I would agree. But the overriding problem we have is that those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times that of those who don't. Why? Because government welfare programs PAY them to do nothing but breed. That means the size of the welfare class will eventually eclipse that of everyone else. I'm sure you can see how that's not financially sustainable. Who's going to pay for all their welfare benefits?
I think they should -- in fact, I'd return to the pre-Reagan rates. But the President is concerned that the high income earners have done far better than everyone else and therefore take most of the hikes.
No. His position is they take all of the hikes despite the fact that the middle-class got most of the benefit.
Actually, we do know how things were when taxes were higher. And we have also gone through times when taxes were lowered on the promise of full employment by 2010 and debt paid off. Instead we saw one of the worst decade in terms of economic growth and employment, since the Great Depression.
You can't avoid that, when talking about static and dynamic. You ASSUME being on the dynamic side, because pragmatism eludes you.
And what do YOU have? Utopia, I must suggest.
Well, you've had a monopoly. You've had a military bubble. You've had a tech bubble. You've have a credit bubble and a housing bubble.
And no bubble before that? And the promise of the perfect world as promised by conservatives in 2000-2001 when trying to sell tax cuts to the masses?
Tell me.
And pragmatic countries have surged ahead of us, for a reason, on BOTH.
There has been NOTHING sustainable about the economy since 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. I KNOW that.
But you're stupid enough to make a point on it.
I call that "conservatism".
You know why I know you have nothing terms of a real response. You resorted to name calling and didn't even attempt to explain how and why today and tomorrow are the same or different from yesterday.
You see, you seem to think that tomorrow is going to be the same as yesterday because you can't comprehend your own statements and your own beliefs and what actions they have.
You say "every other nation" and then completely ignore globalization. America is becoming every other nation and the economic problems you're seeing can attest to that. You don't get to detach yourself from reality and think the world will be fine and then go back to some happy place.
The undeniable fact is wealth is transferring faster than at any time in history from one part of the planet to another. Anything you do to change that or try to avert it will only make it that much worse. When things equalize and there's near equilibrium the only thing that differentiate you from everyone else is your level of debt.
You seem to want to be the most indebted nation on the planet so that today is great. You speak of pragmatism but you don't seem to understand the word.
Romer does indeed address the top end:What is the end result of reducing the income of the source of roughly 50% of the federal income tax revenue?
It's not just the 1% or 2% top end. You're talking about what amounts to those responsible for generating so much productivity that they pay roughly 50% of the federal income tax revenue. His investment. Big difference.
The increased productivity is due to many factors, including the hard work of the American middle class. It's just that the wealthy are being over-rewarded for productivity they themselves did not generate.
I didn't say anything about regulations. But a 30% minimum tax rate on all income of 1,000,000 dollars or more doesn't sound like a bad idea.
What that means to one person or another could be tens to hundreds of millions of dollars or it could be a few extra bucks on their tax bills.
You think the motivations for all of them will be the same? If it meant $10 million to a person you think that enough motivation to move to an emerging market? How about $30 million? How about $100 million?
Maybe now you can see how those motivations are multiplied.
What that means to one person or another could be tens to hundreds of millions of dollars or it could be a few extra bucks on their tax bills.
You think the motivations for all of them will be the same? If it meant $10 million to a person you think that enough motivation to move to an emerging market? How about $30 million? How about $100 million?
Maybe now you can see how those motivations are multiplied.
Very few people, perhaps less than 0.01 % of the 0.1 % are going to see their tax bill increase by $100 million due to a increase in top rates of a few per cent And if they are that wealthy it's not going o be a meaningful change in after-tax income for them.
Incomes for the top income levels and what per cent of all U.S. income they earn. As you can see, increasing the tax rate on just the 1 % and above would lead to increased revenue on 53 % of the income taxed in the U.S.
Top 1% = $368,238 (20.9% of income)
Top 0.5% = $558,726 (16.8% of income)
Top 0.1% = $1,695,136 (10.3% of income)
Top 0.01% = $9,141,190 (5% of income)
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.
