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.
Meaningless numbers without knowing what the top 5% made. i.e. If they made 90% of the $$$ and paid 40% of taxes it's ajust a bit different than if they made 30% of the $$$ and paid 40% of the taxes.
But the right-wing regressionist that you are knew that, eh?
Top 5% is more representaive of the upper middle class at 154K. Even Obamma's cut off was what 250k in his speeches? Even the top 1% at 343k doesn't describe the Warren Buffets and others that pay mostly long term capitol gains of 10%.
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.
Its a red herring is my point. Deficits print money which is what you want during slack demand. That the deficits are of little effect has to do with how the administration has aimed it a social spending instead of tangible investment. However that is not the only way to fix our ills. We need to pound the asset nail down which does nothing but create high access charges for the productive economy. Taxing it instead of capital and labor would have fixed this problem years ago.
I have to give it to the financial press though. They have Americans believing in:
* affordable housing and rising home values being a good thing.
* that the government is in lots of debt and is printing too much money.
* that people have too much debt and that banks need to loosen up credit
* everyone saving is good.
They have Americans believing in insane and nonsensical paradoxes. Not even I thought they were that stupid, but they estimated them correctly. They are that gullible. It is so much so that when I unravel the paradoxes and show them for what they are, they think I am nuts for not believing in two things that cannot exist on a fundamental level at the same time.
It doesn't and that's the point. When Republicans whine about deficits and they're asked what should be done, the first thing they say is, 'tax cuts.' The second is slash social programs. That is the definition of placing the burden on the backs of the poor.
Tax rate cuts usually result in more revenue, just like having a sale, increases sales.
I am NOT in favor of slashing social programs, I am in favor of ELIMINATING them as the FEDERAL Level.
50% of households only own 1% of the nations wealth -- and the GOP is mad that these people don't pay income taxes.
How is it that you do not know that wealth and income are two very different things?
One with a very high income can go bankrupt, often many times. Go ask Trump.
Meanwhile, one with a very modest middle class income can amass millions of dollars of wealth. Read The Millionaire Next Door. The Millionaire Next Door
if we raise the taxes on the 250k+ group (to the pre bush era rates)...we will get about 80-90 billion for the year
the DEFICIT for the first month of the FY (Oct) is 140 billion
so taxing the rich...will pay for about 2 weeks.....
so what do the liberals propose to do, to solve the deficit/ (and bigger debt) problem
First you need to solve the problem that you have no real understanding of the basic problem. The rich are rent seeking and speculating on assets meaning their surplus is now by far the most harmful.
Gee what should I do with this extra money? Hmmm...I know, I will buy up the cheap housing and rent it to the middle class..
This will jack up rents which will leave less money for the middle class to spend on good and services.
As I have said often enough, the deficit has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the overhead on the productive economy and tax policy needs to shift it away from the toll booth economy so popular back in pre-revolutionary France.
if we raise the taxes on the 250k+ group (to the pre bush era rates)...we will get about 80-90 billion for the year
the DEFICIT for the first month of the FY (Oct) is 140 billion
so taxing the rich...will pay for about 2 weeks.....
so what do the liberals propose to do, to solve the deficit/ (and bigger debt) problem
One thing I have learned over the last 40 years of watching politics, is Revenue Increases and NEVER as BIG as EXPECTED, while EXPENDITURES Always exceed all extimates, sometimes exponentially.
Even the rich can't be so stupid to think they'd continue to enjoy their current standard of living if this country goes the way of a banana republic? With walled enclaves of propserity surrounded by masses of poverty, disease and crime?
Tell them to stop breeding at a rate 3 times higher than that of responsible contributing citizens. Fewer needy people = lower cost to support them = better conditions for all.
Its a red herring is my point. Deficits print money which is what you want during slack demand. That the deficits are of little effect has to do with how the administration has aimed it a social spending instead of tangible investment. However that is not the only way to fix our ills. We need to pound the asset nail down which does nothing but create high access charges for the productive economy. Taxing it instead of capital and labor would have fixed this problem years ago.
I have to give it to the financial press though. They have Americans believing in:
* affordable housing and rising home values being a good thing.
* that the government is in lots of debt and is printing too much money.
* that people have too much debt and that banks need to loosen up credit
* everyone saving is good.
They have Americans believing in insane and nonsensical paradoxes. Not even I thought they were that stupid, but they estimated them correctly. They are that gullible. It is so much so that when I unravel the paradoxes and show them for what they are, they think I am nuts for not believing in two things that cannot exist on a fundamental level at the same time.
I don't think the deficits are meaningless.
I am not worried about US national debt per se, but I don't think you can have just huge runaway budget deficits year after year.
I think you are right concerning taxes though, Stop taxing wages and investments and start taxing assets. I could agree with that if it were done correctly.
I don't believe the US government is printing too much money right now.
I don't believe that people have too much debt.
I don't know what you mean by banks need to loosen credit though? Are you talking about banks issuing more loans?
I don't believe in "morality" when it comes to money that saving is necessarily better than spending. Obviously as a consumer driven economy if everyone stops spending then we are screwed.
I do think that US policy towards homeownership does need to be revisited. Although creating affordable homes or living is something I think the US government will be involved in and has to be.
Housing prices increase when you have a growing population, who are making good wages, and housing policy that favors owners over renters.
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.
