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.
Because taxing the poor would be like trying to get blood from a stone. Taxing the rich, however, would be like squeezing blood from a blood-swollen tick.
Don't be a moron. What has the expenditure been other than to bail out the financial sector, which crashed and burned after a decade of deregulation? There is no way that Obama increased domestic and military spending 3x. The point is, Bush's tax rates were unsustainably low and expenditures ridiculously high throughout the housing boom, and noone raised an eyebrow. When the fool's gold ran dry, everyone is suddenly a fiscal conservative.
The tax rates during Clinton's era seemed to work. The Bush era was a pipe dream. We need to return to reality. Get over it.
I'm all for returning to the Clinton tax rates IN EXCHANGE for the Clinton era federal spending levels. That would balance the budget and reduce the deficit since we take in more revenue now.
What is this guy hiding? What is his obsession with taxing the rich? The rich and corporations already pay the most income taxes by far than any other group and there isn't nearly enough money to make a dent in the defecit.
If there is such thing as being obsessed with hating a person, your post would fit perfectly. Perhaps you should consider taking a more logical approach than an overly emotional one.
To that effect, when you say that the rich already pay the most income taxes, could it also be because they make the most in income (and we're not even considering capital gains income which would be a luxury to "most" that don't contribute much in federal income tax).
Fine. Raise revenue by taxing the tens of millions of people who don't pay a dime in taxes.
You get what you subsidize. Libs subsidized the crap out of a loophole-rich welfare state...so what we got was 50% of our population acting as dead weight.
You want to get everyone in a 'fair share' sorta way? Federal sales tax. The rich will still pay more...but no one escapes paying something. And it will make all the people who have money for all the fun things but never have any money for being responsible finally fork over SOMETHING into this system.
I agree with your last two posts. I especially agree with the sales tax idea, with exemptions for basic foods. (I'm against the government rebate check idea).
But to be fair, the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthy" actually took more people out of the tax system by allowing them to pay zero.
I'm all for returning to the Clinton tax rates IN EXCHANGE for the Clinton era federal spending levels. That would balance the budget and reduce the deficit since we take in more revenue now.
Can we agree on this plan?
So to take an example, your proposal would include only as many seniors as existed in Clinton years, taking advantage of Medicare and Medicaid? A cut in military spending by $400 Billion? Or, would you ultimately consider percentages to address such realistic issues, the size of "the problem", as opposed to absolute numbers?
It is not "a plan" unless such details are a part of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
Raise revenue by taxing the tens of millions of people who don't pay a dime in taxes.
Who would those people be? And I hope you implied only federal income tax, which can be zero or negative with deductions for a lot of Americans that also includes millionaires... and then, how much do you think a household with $15K in adjusted gross income pay in such tax? And how much impact do you see in terms of helping with increased tax revenue?
It's simple, because the rich can afford to pay more. The poor don't pay any taxes and the middle class are already being tax to death.
The rich actually pay less in tax in percentage wise. They should pay more tax. What more, Obama don't really want to tax the rich more, he just want to end their tax break which only made them richer and did not create any more jobs as the republican claims.
The tax break has been created under Bush and the republican control congress claiming that it will create jobs. The opposite happened, we lost millions of job while the rich are getting richer.....
So we need to do drastic cuts that would hurt the elderly and poor, so Bill Gates can get more tax breaks? That makes sense.
How is it going to hurt the elderly and poor? So do you think it is necessary to fight 4 years? If we stop these needless wars, we have enough money to pay for everything.
The SS and medicare are ponzi scheme, and now they are saying they cannot make the payment if the debt ceiling does not get rise? So why are we still force to pay for SS and medicare. It's 15.3% (7.65 from us and 7.65 from employer, 15.3% if self employed).
The problem here is not tax. It is spending. until spending is fix, no amount of tax can fix it. Even if tax is 100%, we still unable to fix it.
Or is that his excuse for not allowing spending cuts? Seems like this whole debt crisis would be over if we had a new president who was able to control spending. You really have to wonder why, by his own admission, he does something that could single handedly take down his presidency.
What is this guy hiding? What is his obsession with taxing the rich? The rich and corporations already pay the most income taxes by far than any other group and there isn't nearly enough money to make a dent in the defecit.
Taxes for a big spender is like vodka for an alcoholic. Obama knows that taxes are the fuel for a big bloated powerful government. The more tax revenue that's collected, the bigger he can grow government.
Lower taxes inevitably lead to a less powerful government.
So to Obama, it's not about taxes. It's all about growing a powerful central government and that has to be fed by taxes.
Or is that his excuse for not allowing spending cuts? Seems like this whole debt crisis would be over if we had a new president who was able to control spending. You really have to wonder why, by his own admission, he does something that could single handedly take down his presidency.
What is this guy hiding? What is his obsession with taxing the rich? The rich and corporations already pay the most income taxes by far than any other group and there isn't nearly enough money to make a dent in the defecit.
I agree with your last two posts. I especially agree with the sales tax idea, with exemptions for basic foods. (I'm against the government rebate check idea).
But to be fair, the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthy" actually took more people out of the tax system by allowing them to pay zero.
A bigger driver to that effect is decline in wages. For an average household income, and despite a larger economy (and income), the wages have never been higher, over ten years, than they were in 2000 which by itself is unprecedented and, IMO, a major contributor to the disastrous shape of the economy during that same period. Did the real economy ever recover following 2001 recession? Not in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000
How is it going to hurt the elderly and poor? So do you think it is necessary to fight 4 years? If we stop these needless wars, we have enough money to pay for everything.
When did the aforementioned wars transform themselves from being a necessity and the right thing to do, to needless? Did Americans suddenly grow up from their immature past just a decade ago, or is this simply a continuing trend of what they really are? And how is it going to hurt the elderly and the poor? Well, try giving some thought to it as opposed to simply hearing and propagating the right wing rhetoric. And it won't be just the elderly and the poor, everybody will be hurt because when majority of participants of the country are in bad shape, the economy and consequently the country suffers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000
The problem here is not tax. It is spending. until spending is fix, no amount of tax can fix it. Even if tax is 100%, we still unable to fix it.
Tax revenue in 2000 (last balanced budget): $2.6 Trillion dollars (and GDP was $12.4 Trillion).
Tax revenue in 2010: $2.1 Trillion dollars (and GDP was $14.5 Trillion).
How is this not a tax revenue problem as well? When you answer this question, also list major spending programs with associated costs that can be cut to match the tax revenue. I will look forward to it.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 07-14-2011 at 08:43 AM..
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.
