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.
Conservatives want increase in Defense budget. How can we reduce the Deficit because on one hand, they want to reduce tax-rates for the rich people and on the other hand they want to increase Defense Budget?
so you want the taxes on the poor and middleclass to go up
because the 'bush' tax cuts/credits were mainly for the poor and middleclass
That depends upon how one looks at it. While the Bush tax-cuts went mainly to the 99%, 25% of the Bush tax-cuts went to the top 1%. Most went to the middle-class simply because there are more middle class people than top earners. But it is also true that the top bracket received a lopsided proportion of those tax-cuts.
There is no reason that the ultimate goal should be merely to undo the Bush tax-cuts and bring rates only back to the low rates under Clinton. Why not return to post-Reagan tax rates on the wealthy? Back in the 80s there were loads of rich people and taxing income at 50% and 28% on capital gains didn't seem to be a drag on the economy.
I thin everyone's taxes should be increased when the economy is healthier and incomes for all Americans are growing.
I think that what our government spends is roughly is what we should aim to collect in taxes. Or at least to where the budget deficits aren't growing out of control.
Now a huge part of this is the economy, once it's growing at a faster clip, revenue will increase, but to make up some of the short fall we will need to raise taxes on everyone or at least on many more people.
So again you are another one of those who thinks all money should be created by bank loans, which never come into existence without bloating some asset first. Its asstounding to listen to currency debasement rhetoric without a peep about bank credit creation with no tangible new product to speak of when they make loans out of thin air which includes ground values.
We use a fiat currency and paying it back is the last thing we need to worry about because its willed into existence by budget deficits. We should abandon the idea, that was never true even with convertible currency , that financial flows represent the real economy. When unemployment and industrial capacity goes away then we know we are hitting the limits. After that we can then look into all the junk money creation which does involve all the welfare freebies yes, but also asset inflating bank credit junk loans that put us here in the first place. The Federal government doesn't need money and it does not need to take money out of a slack economy.
The way a good economy works here in the USA a bank creates credit for an existing asset which is potentially spend on new product. Thus our economy lives off the crumbs of asset inflation bank credit. Now that much of that is saturated the real economy does not even have as many crumbs. Imagine if we only allowed bank loans for real asset creation?
income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income.
That would be from perspective of collectivism. Taking individualism into account, however, changes that quite a bit. To understand my point, consider number of households to arrive at average income (and we're talking strictly "income", BTW, excluding capital gains) that account for "just" 13.4% of household income versus the remaining 99%. It could be... 1 person makes $13.4 and the remaining 99 make $86.6.
That (fair) might be too much to expect...
but how about if we start with the pre-Bush levels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
so you want the taxes on the poor and middleclass to go up
because the 'bush' tax cuts/credits were mainly for the poor and middleclass
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
While the Bush tax-cuts went mainly to the 99%, 25% of the Bush tax-cuts went to the top 1%.
...the top bracket received a lopsided proportion of those tax-cuts.
Correct.
Quote:
There is no reason that the ultimate goal should be merely to undo the Bush tax-cuts and bring
rates only back to the low rates under Clinton. Why not return to post-Reagan tax rates on the wealthy?
OK. That's fine with me too.
Quote:
Back in the 80s there were loads of rich people and taxing income at 50% and 28%
on capital gains... didn't seem to be a drag on the economy.
So again you are another one of those who thinks all money should be created by bank loans, which never come into existence without bloating some asset first. Its asstounding to listen to currency debasement rhetoric without a peep about bank credit creation with no tangible new product to speak of when they make loans out of thin air which includes ground values.
We use a fiat currency and paying it back is the last thing we need to worry about because its willed into existence by budget deficits. We should abandon the idea, that was never true even with convertible currency , that financial flows represent the real economy. When unemployment and industrial capacity goes away then we know we are hitting the limits. After that we can then look into all the junk money creation which does involve all the welfare freebies yes, but also asset inflating bank credit junk loans that put us here in the first place. The Federal government doesn't need money and it does not need to take money out of a slack economy.
The way a good economy works here in the USA a bank creates credit for an existing asset which is potentially spend on new product. Thus our economy lives off the crumbs of asset inflation bank credit. Now that much of that is saturated the real economy does not even have as many crumbs. Imagine if we only allowed bank loans for real asset creation?
I see your point. My point isn't that revenues have to exactly match spending, only that there should be some kind of relation to where we control our budget deficits.
Just exactly how do you balance the budget on the backs of the poor, who already are paying $0 or less in income tax???
The republican idea being that they should pay taxes, instead of getting all those deductions. Deductions are only for the hard working millionaires and billionaires, and businesses.
The republican idea being that they should pay taxes, instead of getting all those deductions. Deductions are only for the hard working millionaires and billionaires, and businesses.
I agree with the sentiment, that all should pay some income tax.
When I was a kid, I worked at a Holiday Inn washing dishes, I made $1.35 an hour, summer job. I paid then, more in taxes than about half of working Americans do today, who pay $0.00 or less.
But that is a far cry from balanceing the budget on their backs, that is just common-sense fair play.
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.
