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.
Hardly, its been proven time and time again that even if you tax the rich at 100% it still wouldn't pay off a noticeable part of our debt.
That's a pretty disingenuous argument. Ok, taxing the wealthy would at least help reduce deficits.
I also have a question: do you guys have an example of a country with a high standard of living, low taxes, low debt, and a gigantic military industrial complex?
.............If president Obama is elected again and these tax cuts expire for the well off we could start paying off these huge debts..............
You probably believe that because the president of the United States has been saying it, and it is featured in one of his campaign commercials, spoken as he looks into the camera.
And it is total hogwash. Fifteen years worth of the projected increase in taxes on "millionaires and billionaires," i.e., couples making $250,000 or more, would NOT PAY EVEN ONE YEAR of the Obama deficit. That's what manic spending will do for you.
Remedial classes in mathematics are available at tens of thousands of locations around the country. Take action--improve yourself.
That's a pretty disingenuous argument. Ok, taxing the wealthy would at least help reduce deficits.
I also have a question: do you guys have an example of a country with a high standard of living, low taxes, low debt, and a gigantic military industrial complex?
Not disingenuous at all. I could donate a penny a day to the debt and sure, that would "help" at the most minimal level, your statement makes it sound like it would be some windfall of revenue which couldnt be further from the truth.
Ill support the current republican candidates on many of their economic views all day long, but dont get me started on the military / war issue...thats where I can't get behind them. Also, sadly there isn't an example of any country that compares to the US for millions of reasons...which is one of the reasons why I hate when people try to say we should have universal healthcare and compare us to countries with a fraction of our population, GDP, and other factors.
Not disingenuous at all. I could donate a penny a day to the debt and sure, that would "help" at the most minimal level, your statement makes it sound like it would be some windfall of revenue which couldnt be further from the truth.
Ill support the current republican candidates on many of their economic views all day long, but dont get me started on the military / war issue...thats where I can't get behind them. Also, sadly there isn't an example of any country that compares to the US for millions of reasons...which is one of the reasons why I hate when people try to say we should have universal healthcare and compare us to countries with a fraction of our population, GDP, and other factors.
Ok, so you don't believe in revenue, you don't want to find examples of other countries because we are "different," let's talk about something we agree about- the military industrial complex.
Can you confidently vote for Republicans when you know they have no intention of tackling this issue? Military spending is a monstrosity, and we know that Paul Ryan's budget had no proposals to reduce it. The Republicans are also just beating the drums to go into Syria and Iran. We also know that whatever we do get involved with will have a monstrous cost and will not be paid for, a la Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in addition to spilling the precious blood of our country's soldiers for people who wouldn't turn them over if they were drowning in a puddle. Mind you, I do not think that the Democrats and President Obama are some sort of angels, but I prefer the devil I know to the devil I used to know and who destroyed everything and is now coming back to me in more dysfunctional packaging, if you know what I mean.
How do you reconcile voting for Romney when you consider the above?
The wealthy will be fine, if Obama wins, the $2 trillion hoarded will become $4 trill, the 5.2 mill long-term unemployed, which doubled under OBooBoo will most likely surpass 8 mill, but they will be fine.
Now if we become a nation worthy of investment, long-term unemployment will shrink. But we'd have to get past our childish envy of those who have done better.
Ok, so you don't believe in revenue, you don't want to find examples of other countries because we are "different," let's talk about something we agree about- the military industrial complex.
Can you confidently vote for Republicans when you know they have no intention of tackling this issue? Military spending is a monstrosity, and we know that Paul Ryan's budget had no proposals to reduce it. The Republicans are also just beating the drums to go into Syria and Iran. We also know that whatever we do get involved with will have a monstrous cost and will not be paid for, a la Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in addition to spilling the precious blood of our country's soldiers for people who wouldn't turn them over if they were drowning in a puddle. Mind you, I do not think that the Democrats and President Obama are some sort of angels, but I prefer the devil I know to the devil I used to know and who destroyed everything and is now coming back to me in more dysfunctional packaging, if you know what I mean.
How do you reconcile voting for Romney when you consider the above?
It is @ $ $ inine to say "I don't believe in revenues" like that. Your example holds no foundation in reality when it comes to the rich and their taxes paying off our debt, so don't you dare try and turn that around on me by saying I'm somehow not understanding the issue. Its a proven fact that the taxes of the rich are not enough to dig us out of this hole.
I never said I'm voting for Romney, in fact its a 100% certainty that I will not vote for him...or Obama. I'll defend the principles of his economics, but I'll never vote for him for various other reasons.
It is @ $ $ inine to say "I don't believe in revenues" like that. Your example holds no foundation in reality when it comes to the rich and their taxes paying off our debt, so don't you dare try and turn that around on me by saying I'm somehow not understanding the issue. Its a proven fact that the taxes of the rich are not enough to dig us out of this hole.
I never said I'm voting for Romney, in fact its a 100% certainty that I will not vote for him...or Obama. I'll defend the principles of his economics, but I'll never vote for him for various other reasons.
I'm sorry if I mischaracterized your position, obviously I was being too glib. But just because something (increasing taxes on the wealthy) is not a 100% solution does not mean that it is absolutely not part of the solution. There needs to be an increase in revenue *and* cuts in spending. If you have a study or example that definitively shows that decreasing taxes on the rich improves the economy I'd be more than happy to look at it.
I'm sorry if I mischaracterized your position, obviously I was being too glib. But just because something (increasing taxes on the wealthy) is not a 100% solution does not mean that it is absolutely not part of the solution. There needs to be an increase in revenue *and* cuts in spending. If you have a study or example that definitively shows that decreasing taxes on the rich improves the economy I'd be more than happy to look at it.
I'm not calling for a decrease...I think we are just good where we are.
And yes...to go back to my previous example, even paying 1 cent a day to the debt "helps" the situation, but there are so many other ways to reduce expenses that should come before trying to raise revenues. I think we are taxed plenty, the bigger issue is wasteful and thoughtless spending....lots of it military related.
I'm sorry if I mischaracterized your position, obviously I was being too glib. But just because something (increasing taxes on the wealthy) is not a 100% solution does not mean that it is absolutely not part of the solution. There needs to be an increase in revenue *and* cuts in spending. If you have a study or example that definitively shows that decreasing taxes on the rich improves the economy I'd be more than happy to look at it.
So 70% of all income tax dollars collected come from 10% of us--disproportionately more than the 10%'s share of income. And you talk as if this were not already the case. "Don't believe in revenues?" Sheesh--we're the ones paying most of the revenue.
I'm not calling for a decrease...I think we are just good where we are.
And yes...to go back to my previous example, even paying 1 cent a day to the debt "helps" the situation, but there are so many other ways to reduce expenses that should come before trying to raise revenues. I think we are taxed plenty, the bigger issue is wasteful and thoughtless spending....lots of it military related.
Maybe you and I are paying enough in taxes, but I don't think Mitt Romney is. Do you think a ~13% rate for him is fair?
Honestly, our government is so completely dysfunctional that I really think that in the end, both *everyone's* taxes are going to go up, and programs and benefits will be reduced or eliminated.
I did not used to care much about this issue, until I took a class on federal income tax in law school. Only after studying the tax code did I come to realize how atrocious it is. The middle class and even the upper middle class are absolutely screwed by the current system. I would say that the government is probably getting the bulk of the income tax from people earning 75k-500 or maybe 600k. Many of these people are well-to-do, but they're not "rich," as in Mitt Romney rich. There are many, many loopholes and tricks of the trade for the ultra-rich that you could never access. Things like the AMT should have been indexed to inflation, but that never happened. But nothing can be fixed or changed or tweaked because of the political paralysis.
Furthermore, to the "But the top 10% are paying 70% of the taxes!" crowd- that is what a progressive system of taxation is. The people earning the bulk of the money pay the bulk of the taxes. Maybe you just don't like the current system. That is a separate discussion.
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.
