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.
Obama is obsessed with increasing taxes on "the rich" in spite of evidence showing that this measure only generates an additional $80 billion per year, while we have deficits of $1.2 trillion per year. Obviously, this is a drop in the bucket and does nothing to address our fiscal woes. In fact, if every single one of "the rich" (those making over $250K per year) were ENSLAVED and gave 100% of thier income to the government, it would only generate $900 billion per year (even with slaves, we would have an annual deficit).
So what next, libs? Income tax increases will do little, if anything to make a dent in the annual deficits, let alone the debt.
A VAT tax of 15% would raise $1.3 trillion per year (wiping out annual deficits), however our politicians lack the will to initiate such a tax and the feds would simply blow the "surplus" anyway.
So..................................... what do you do when these "taxes on the rich" fail to produce any significant revenue and the impact on small business increases unemployment?
From observations over the most recent forty years I've learned that when taxes increase, so does government spending. No revenue generation required. And now Geithner... well, count down to party USA
So not very many have commented on what the government would do if this "tax the rich" scheme doesn't work.
All the money (literally !!!) is riding on "tax the rich".
So not very many have commented on what the government would do if this "tax the rich" scheme doesn't work.
All the money (literally !!!) is riding on "tax the rich".
Because there is no answer Obama can come up with for them.
"Taxing the rich" is meant to pacify crybabies who don't like the fact that others have what they do not,it's not meant to fix or change a damn thing. If it were? It would start with those who make $ 1M+ per year, not $251,000.
Just because somewhere between $251K and (lets just say) $400K seems 'rich' to those who live in states where the cost of living is low, doesn't mean it is everywhere. In the NY/NJ metro area, that's comfortable - if you have children, a mortgage, a car or two, save for retirement, save for your kids college....you know, doing everything "right", living the "American Dream" that you worked for while taking care of your responsibilities at the same time.
Property taxes won't decrease, the cost of living won't decrease, people will have to cut back and adjust their lifestyle "choices", like another poster mentioned, and who is that going to affect? The employees of the company those "rich folks" cut out. Who are the employees of the companies those "rich folks" will cut out? The ones all for taxing the "rich"?
Those who own their own business will raise prices and cut over head (employees or their hours are the easiest part of overhead TO cut). Who in their right mind is going to take a hit b/c others want a piece of what they have?
There will be a trickle down effect, proponents of the concept better get ready for it or come up with a back-up plan because they're going to need it.
You are talking about INCREASED EXPENSES. That is the problem. We have a spending problem. The original question I posed was this- when the "taxes on the rich fail, what measures will be taken by libs to increase revenues and curb spending".
Obviously, it appears as though the answer is NOTHING.
Yes, we have a spending problem. NO tax increases are needed for anyone.
CUT spending. Government is way too big, too powerful and too expensive.
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.