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.
the middle class is going to be burned here, just as they were in greece-because people don't seem to understand what the FUNDAMENTAL problem is. the more the government tries to intervene to force behavior, the more we will see unintended consequences.
i understand that obama does not want to address the private sector, as weak dependent people cede their power to him and to the government-but it's all very sad.
the middle class is going to be burned here, just as they were in greece-because people don't seem to understand what the FUNDAMENTAL problem is. the more the government tries to intervene to force behavior, the more we will see unintended consequences.
i understand that obama does not want to address the private sector, as weak dependent people cede their power to him and to the government-but it's all very sad.
Anyone who claims that the U.S. is or will be anything like Greece doesn't know what they are talking about. Greece doesn't have their own currency, they U.S. does. If you think that Greece's problem is too generous social programs, explain why the countries who have the most generous governments, like Sweden, Norway and Denmark all are doing fine. Moreover, before the financial crisis, Spain was the model of responsibility, running surpluses.
And such proposed tax increases have a 100% failure rate when it comes to the actual income matching the projected income.
Unfortunately Democrats are too myopic and intransigent, and have always believed that tax increases never result in folks modifying their financial behavior, such as issuing dividends this year as opposed to next year, which is happening a lot throughout corporate America.
Look for another attempt by Democrats to raise taxes in December of 2013 when their expectations for revenue in 2013 fall woefully short again.
This has been plainly shown to be true over, and over again. Yet they still cling to their false premises.
Some 62 percent of the households who owe no federal income tax in 2011 have incomes under $20,000.
And at least in 2009 there were 6 families in the top wealthiest 400 households in the U.S. that paid absolutely zero income tax. Average income ~ $202 million. If you're going to be mad at anyone be mad at them.
Income or net worth? Those are two very very different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
Some 62 percent of the households who owe no federal income tax in 2011 have incomes under $20,000
And this is whom you want to have more skin in the game?
Yes, I want everyone to have a vested interest in what happens.
I don't think they really care too much about the revenue. I think it's politics to them. You notice at the height of the recession they did concede the increased tax rates would be harmful to the economy. So in their heart of hearts they know how it is. But their ideology is worth more to them than reality in all but the most desperate of circumstances.
This is true. It's about punishing achievement; "fairness." It's not "fair" that someone has more than another. Things must be equalized. Therefore, the guy who has gone into business for himself, worked hard and been successful, "played by the rules" (as the liberals are fond of saying) and has a nice retirement "nest egg," must have his wealth confiscated. The claim is that he doesn't pay his "fair share."
This is the "liberal" meme and has been for many years. There can be no "winners" in childrens games anymore. Everybody gets a trophy or a ribbon. It's all about "fairness."
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
If they cared about fiscal responsibility they wouldn't have spent us into oblivion to begin with. They wouldn't blame the deficits on Iraq. They wouldn't block using our natural resources. Etc.
Even if the tax rates do bring in increased revenues, they will just spend it. They won't use it to lower the deficit. I mean just look at Obama in one breath saying that ending the wars will save a bunch of money, then in the next breath launches into all the new "investing" we need to do.
I'm reminded of Bill Clinton's so-called "peace dividend!" Thats all well and good if there is no war. But peace comes through strength. Therefore, a strong military is necessary. Obama is foolishly cutting our military spending and weapons programs to dangerous levels. But, we have to ask, is this intentional? I believe it is. Obama's intent is to destroy America.
And such proposed tax increases have a 100% failure rate when it comes to the actual income matching the projected income.
Unfortunately Democrats are too myopic and intransigent, and have always believed that tax increases never result in folks modifying their financial behavior, such as issuing dividends this year as opposed to next year, which is happening a lot throughout corporate America.
Look for another attempt by Democrats to raise taxes in December of 2013 when their expectations for revenue in 2013 fall woefully short again.
Your baseless assertion has been discredited many times. This recent post comes to mind, which clearly shows that tax-cuts reduce revenue and tax-increases raise revenue: http://www.city-data.com/forum/27188240-post289.html
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.
