Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:Taxing the rich isn't the answer. Rich people own factories and businesses - and are the *engines of the economy*. Welfare recipients are not the engines of the economy. Ditto burger flippers and suchlike (though they are a vast improvement over those on assistance that *could* work).

And yet, the trickle down economic "theory" has been proven, time and again, to be a baseless load of crap. Giving rich people more money won't give the country more jobs, it's been proven so many times that it's painful to think someone still believes in that theory. The trickle down economic "theory" is a load of gak.

You prefer "trickle up poverty"?

Prosperous companies can afford to hire more people. Prosperous companies spend more on their communities. It's very simple. Without the prospect of prosperity, where is the drive to earn, innovate, or build? These things are not theories, they are truths.

And yet, the long history of tax cuts for corporations or the rich has never produced economic benefit for everyone else.

In the end, small businesses produce more new jobs than big businesses anyway, and these people aren't in the richest part of the nation.

But many earn over the magical $250K demarcation. You'd hurt them far more than a GE or GM.

Small businesses are taxed differently than huge businesses. It's not just how much they make, but also their number of employees, the scale of their business, etc that matters.

For that matter, just closing up various loopholes and tax breaks would net lots more income, without actually raising any numbers in the tax code.

Don't get me wrong, I am for stopping abuses and ALL for people and companies paying *fairly*. THAT would net lots more income, and less need for services. Let those services be for the folks that truly have no other options.

VoidAngel wrote:Taxing the rich isn't the answer. Rich people own factories and businesses - and are the *engines of the economy*. Welfare recipients are not the engines of the economy. Ditto burger flippers and suchlike (though they are a vast improvement over those on assistance that *could* work).

This is the exact opposite of truth. Economies are driven from the bottom up. The working class for the most stays in one area, and spends all their money on local businesses, which are either owned by or buy their stock from wealthier, non-local companies, in addition to employing other locals who also spend money thusly. The large, non-local companies are generally owned by even larger multinational corporations, like GE. They, in turn, take the money they've earned, and pay it out to their executives, who put it in swiss bank accounts and sit on it, living on a comparable pittance (millions of dollars) of what they actually own (much, much more), which just sits, locked away in a vault. The wealthy don't drive economies in the least, they suck money out of them for its own sake.

The rich should be taxed fairly, which they already are. Having money isn't a crime, and if you earn it - you should keep most of it.

They don't actually earn the money, they pay other people to earn it for them, or steal/swindle it through convoluted tricks (like speculation and high-frequency trading), and they pay significantly less of their income than poor people who can't afford to hire professional tax-evaders to minimize their costs with a tiny fraction of what they save by doing so.

So...where can we save some money? How about going back to the time-honored "If you get, you work" system? I know some of the Democratic party's constituents don't like that idea, but tough. You want things? Work. Let social programs be for the truly needy, as intended. Reduce the able-but-non-working population by 15%. Someone estimate for us what that would do.

The idea of capable people living on the public dime is largely a myth, and the rare exceptions being anything but a drop in the bucket even more so. And even if it weren't, they're still Americans, who spend the money on local businesses, who employ locals, and buy from/are owned by larger corporations, and thus cannot be a drain on the economy as a result.

Stop illegal immigration. Those folks DO work (mostly) - but don't pay taxes, contribute to unemployment among citizens, and consume resources (medical care, etc.). You have a job? Here's your W2. We'll figure out how to get you naturalized. You don't? Get in the van.

That's much less of a problem than it's made out to be. They fill sub-minimum wage positions performing strenuous, unpleasant, untrained labor, working for private individuals or businesses that are small enough they don't think they'll get investigated. That's not to say the border shouldn't be secured, though I personally think just annexing mexico would be the simplest, easiest solution to that...

The facts. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/04/04/ryan-budget-tax-medicare/

The major papers are abuzz today with details of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI), including his plan to voucherize Medicare and drastically cut Medicaid by turning it into a block grant program. Ryan estimates that the GOP budget will reduce government spending by more than $4 trillion over the next decade.

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday yesterday, Ryan also said that the budget will include some sort of tax reform:

Well, the president’s commission, which I was a member of, first and foremost said to have economic growth in America, you need to lower tax rates for corporations and individuals and broaden the tax base. We will be recommending those kinds of things.

Ryan didn’t reveal the details during the interview, but the Wall Street Journal reported today that the plan will reduce both the top marginal income tax rate and the corporate income tax rate by 10 points:

Conservative activists who are familiar with the Ryan plan said they expect it to call for a fundamental overhaul of the tax system, with a 25% top rate for both individuals and corporations, compared to the current 35% top rate. It is expected to raise about the same amount of money as the current system, however. Lawmakers already are considering ways to accomplish that by reducing or eliminating some deductions and other tax breaks.

The details of this will, of course, become much clearer tomorrow, but it’s worth remembering that Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” includes a reworking of the tax system that dramatically cuts taxes for the rich, raises taxes on 90 percent of the population, and still manages to cost the government trillions of dollars in revenue.

For the House Republican budget to raise the same amount of revenue while lopping ten points off of the top income tax rate means that the tax burden is necessarily going to be shifted down the income scale. Ryan yesterday also refused to endorse cutting taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies, calling into question the GOP’s commitment to actually pairing a cut in the corporate tax rate with the elimination of loopholes and giveaways in order to raise the same amount of revenue through the corporate tax code.

It's ironic that Obama ran such a high deficit because of tax cuts. And republicans have been making plans to tax all year.

Less than 50% of Americans pay taxes. This is the 1/2 that is considered "Rich."

So yeah, lets tax the "rich" so 50%+ of those who don't pay ANY federal taxes at all continue to have a free ride...

This is why the govt doesn't have enough money to continue. If everyone paid thier fair share via a "Flat" or "Fair" tax then there wouldn't be such a short fall.

All it means is that those who rely on the "dole" so to speak, well...

"Dey wont be gittin dey gummint checks and hafta git off dey butts and mebbee get a J.O.B. fer awhile?"

And, honestly, ask yourself this: Did you pay any taxes at all last year, or did you get a refund for just about or more then you paid in Federal Taxes?

If you didn't then you know what it is like to pay taxes. If you did, then you are not paying taxes... simple as that. Instead of having the "rich" like ME, pay for YOU, how about you voluntarily pay taxes (yes there is a box on your tax forms you can check to have the govt withhold some or all of your refund)

If the 50% who pay nothing did that, there would be no problem.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
This is the exact opposite of truth. Economies are driven from the bottom up. The working class for the most stays in one area, and spends all their money on local businesses, which are either owned by or buy their stock from wealthier, non-local companies, in addition to employing other locals who also spend money thusly. The large, non-local companies are generally owned by even larger multinational corporations, like GE. They, in turn, take the money they've earned, and pay it out to their executives, who put it in swiss bank accounts and sit on it, living on a comparable pittance (millions of dollars) of what they actually own (much, much more), which just sits, locked away in a vault. The wealthy don't drive economies in the least, they suck money out of them for its own sake.

Ah yes, the myth of the evil rich people. Do you actually know any C-level execs? Have you ever worked for a Fortune 300 company? I do. Our company is fairly typical for it's type. I know the leadership well. I know how they live, what they own, and how they spend. I know what our company spends on the community. It would be fair to say that the community wouldn't be livable without us. You've swallowed a party line hook, line, and fishing trawler - and now you're repeating it.

The rich should be taxed fairly, which they already are. Having money isn't a crime, and if you earn it - you should keep most of it.
>>They don't actually earn the money, they pay other people to earn it for them, or steal/swindle it through convoluted tricks (like speculation and high-frequency trading), and they pay significantly less of their income than poor people who can't afford to hire professional tax-evaders to minimize their costs with a tiny fraction of what they save by doing so.

See above.

So...where can we save some money? How about going back to the time-honored "If you get, you work" system? I know some of the Democratic party's constituents don't like that idea, but tough. You want things? Work. Let social programs be for the truly needy, as intended. Reduce the able-but-non-working population by 15%. Someone estimate for us what that would do.
>>The idea of capable people living on the public dime is largely a myth, and the rare exceptions being anything but a drop in the bucket even more so. And even if it weren't, they're still Americans, who spend the money on local businesses, who employ locals, and buy from/are owned by larger corporations, and thus cannot be a drain on the economy as a result.

Do you live or work in an impoverished area? Have you ever driven through one (with the windows rolled up and the doors locked, of course)? There are whole cities, effectively, that I assure you are a huge drain on the local economy.

Stop illegal immigration. Those folks DO work (mostly) - but don't pay taxes, contribute to unemployment among citizens, and consume resources (medical care, etc.). You have a job? Here's your W2. We'll figure out how to get you naturalized. You don't? Get in the van.
>>That's much less of a problem than it's made out to be. They fill sub-minimum wage positions performing strenuous, unpleasant, untrained labor, working for private individuals or businesses that are small enough they don't think they'll get investigated. That's not to say the border shouldn't be secured, though I personally think just annexing mexico would be the simplest, easiest solution to that...

It's a huge problem. There is no simple answer that everyone will like - and the Democrats own the Hispanic voters. So...the best ideas won't get implemented any time soon.

This whole thing is pretty infuriating honestly, Rep and Dem are not proposing anything much different from one another its really all smoke and mirrors to give the common folk the impression actual change is being debated. Ultimatly, Demo and Rep are serving the same boss and it shouldnt be any surprise in a capitalist economy that that boss is big business. Stop listening to the media here who are run by, you guessed it, big business with their own agenda..again both of which rep and dem promote(dont get me wrong business is crucial but there needs to be real checks and balances) Further, our counrty has become the military industiral complex and its not to spread democracy but to secure our place as a leader in the globalism world order. If we want to get serious about getting out of debt the whole structure needs to change. First, stop going overseas to install regimes that we think will benefit us in the future (here is a great interview I think everyone should watch..the link is to blacklistednews.com and a lot of the writers are a little too conspiracy theory type for me but like anything else you read you should do your research before believing, but the CIA agent being interviewed does a great job here so it is still worth a watch
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Former_CIA_officer_blows_lid_off_libya_fraud_live_on_CNN_/13355/0/20/20/Y/M.html )
Second we need to reign in the FED, this is a monster that is out of control. Its creation was to benefit big business and thats all it does. Why on earth do we borrower money printed by the fed when our government can print its own money as it did before the fed?? (answer is so that the banks make more money). They print money to support their own agenda..and now when the Fed takes a loss they call it a negative liablity and send the bill to tax payers but when they profit they distribute it to who they see fit ( here is another great article
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/federal-reserve-releases-discount-window-loan-records-under-court-order.htmlAnd its not just an issue of normal boom and bust cycles, our dollar has lost something like 95% of its value in the last 100 years while big business profits and CEO salaries have increased by somthing like 400% in just the last 50 years. A great examples is our most recent mortgage bubble bursting; big banks where raking in huge profits betting of futures and derivatives in the mortgage sector, there was money to made so the banks got recless and investors started bundling toxic assets with A grade paper disquising the risky investment then the whole thing feel, instead of letting the natural consenquences occur (how do we learn from our mistakes but by suffering the consequences), the Fed stepped in and printed billions of dollars to bail the banks out and sent the bill to the tax payers all while the companies today are still posting record profits (I use the anology a lot but its like giving a teen a credit card and when they max it out every month you continue to pay it off for them...how does that promote responsible and sound money?). Another example is gas, there is no shortage in oil or supply or technology to replace oil as a fuel alternative yet we pay more at the pump while the major while just a few companies control the entire process (yet another link worth reading... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24110 ). So many factors have come into play (mainly technology) so that the American people have seen an improvement in quality of living over the last 200 years but our system cannot continue and it will be the people who suffer first unless we stop thinking how the main stream media tell us to think and do a little research on our own and start asking the real questions.

Whew okay, i'm done with my rant let the lighting of the torches comense!

Fact: The shut down (if it happens) will be over Dems and Repubs unable to agree over a 2% cut in the budget.

That is 2 cents on every dollar. If the govt can find a way to save 2% out of the massive cess pool that is Washington D.C. ?

I agree with Democrat Rep. Shiela Jackson Lee. SHUT IT DOWN! SHUT... IT... DOWN!

It's 40%, not 50. And almost all of them earn 30,000 a year or lower to boot.

They aren't getting a "free ride", they're barely getting by.

@Connor McKane: I can't tell if you are saying rich people aren't paying their taxes or if you are saying poor people (which isn't 50%) don't pay enough, or both at the same time.

I am reminded of all the studies that consistently show that Americans have no idea what the actual distribution of wealth is in the country though or that economic mobility has been on the decline for quite some time now. Just having a job (there is no need for an anagram) doesn't mean someone is well off or not in poverty. Hard work isn't as big a part of success as the myth would have you believe. There are many people who work very hard for very little but can't get any traction. There are many factors that come into play.

Federal income tax is the only truly progressive tax (along with some state income taxes)

Every other tax is either flat (city taxes) or regressive (property, sales, excise, etc)

A family of four living on $30k may not pay any federal income tax, but they're paying a small fortune in taxes, at a far bigger percentage rate than a family at $230k.

A flat tax isn't the answer, as attractive as it may be to some. It fits some definitions of "fair" (everybody pays the same portion) - but it won't pay the bills, so to speak. Those that the system enables to earn more, must pay more. It's "how much" more that is the question. While the current system has its loopholes and injustices, it mostly works.

Connor McKane wrote:Fact: The shut down (if it happens) will be over Dems and Repubs unable to agree over a 2% cut in the budget.

That is 2 cents on every dollar.

Uhm, not it's not. It's 2% of the federal budget, which is not 2% of every dollar. 2% is also staggering sums of money and many, many people affected, not just a little here and there.

VoidAngel wrote:A flat tax isn't the answer, as attractive as it may be to some. It fits some definitions of "fair" (everybody pays the same portion) - but it won't pay the bills, so to speak. Those that the system enable to earn more, must pay more. It's "how much" more that is the question. While the current system has its loopholes and injustices, it mostly works.

The flat tax is one of those things that only sounds fair after the most superficial examination. Do we really think we can solve the budget crisis by taxing people making peanuts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:Fact: The shut down (if it happens) will be over Dems and Repubs unable to agree over a 2% cut in the budget.

That is 2 cents on every dollar.

Uhm, not it's not. It's 2% of the federal budget, which is not 2% of every dollar. 2% is also staggering sums of money and many, many people affected, not just a little here and there.

Amen to that. I find out tomorrow if I'm "essential" and still have a job on Monday.

Ahtman wrote:@Connor McKane: I can't tell if you are saying rich people aren't paying their taxes or if you are saying poor people (which isn't 50%) don't pay enough, or both at the same time.

I am reminded of all the studies that consistently show that Americans have no idea what the actual distribution of wealth is in the country though or that economic mobility has been on the decline for quite some time now. Just having a job (there is no need for an anagram) doesn't mean someone is well off or not in poverty. Hard work isn't as big a part of success as the myth would have you believe. There are many people who work very hard for very little but can't get any traction. There are many factors that come into play.

Please re-read the First Line. I am referring to those who pay taxes... they are considered "the rich." Those who have acculumated wealth enough to have taxes levied against them.

And it isn't an anagram the periods = "stops" J (stop) O (stop) B (stop)

But I agree, hard work wont get you out of poverty, I know many ditch diggers who work very hard and dont make squat. But ask yourself this: Is digging a ditch all they are capable of doing? If so, why?

Polonius wrote:Do we really think we can solve the budget crisis by taxing people making peanuts?

Hey now. Other people can use those peanuts! I am all for peanut redistribution!

Now. What are we going to do about all the wealth. It's almost like it's a problem with no clear solution...

Ahtman wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:Fact: The shut down (if it happens) will be over Dems and Repubs unable to agree over a 2% cut in the budget.

That is 2 cents on every dollar.

Uhm, not it's not. It's 2% of the federal budget, which is not 2% of every dollar. 2% is also staggering sums of money and many, many people affected, not just a little here and there.

Dude. This isn't about you or me, and yes, if you could do the math 2% IS 2 cents of every dollar.

1 Dollar = 100 cents. so 2 cents would be 2% of a dollar. So of 2 cents of every dollar the Federal goverment takes in would be....2%


....Oh god, why do I even bother to respond to this ? ...This thread can't die fast enough. I'm out.

The facts seam to me that the rich should get taxed more. They benefit more from the social construct that is the government. They are more able to capitalize on the opportunities that the government provides.

Don't get me wrong it's not all the rich's fault. Poor people have to figure their end out also. Social security and Medicaid are huge and need to be regulated better. People who say the abuses are small really need to look around more. There are entire cities where a vast amount (not most, but many) of the population is sucking off the government teat. There are too many people living on the dole and this segment of the population is breeding at an incredible rate, only exasperating the situation.

Then you have the middle class, who work and toil, pay taxes and don't take government aid. Unfortunately this class is shrinking and falling into the poor class.

The facts are that the Rich have gotten exponentially rich over the past 10 years. The US economy is really getting top heavy and cannot sustain this division of wealth.

I can understand the Rich's view that there are a lot of people living off their contributions, but with their ability to lobby they have the ability to influence the changes needed.

The biggest threat really is to the middle class that own small businesses, this is the engine that really drives the economy and employs most of the work force.

What needs to be done is lock the politicians in (like a papal conclave) and stop paying them until they get this situation fixed.

The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

Well, in my history book, it said that the Founding Fathers said that the country could only live on "this system" for 200 years, maybe we are approaching that turnover?



ZOMBIES! BREAK OUT YOUR DEAD!

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich.

Other than the opportunity to gain and control vast personal, political, and economic power of course.

Connor McKane wrote:Please re-read the First Line. I am referring to those who pay taxes... they are considered "the rich."

No, they aren't. All the members of my family pay taxes, but we are by no means "the rich".

Same with a lot of middle class families.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

And the backs of the hard-working people whom they stepped on to get rich at their expense.

Connor McKane wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:Fact: The shut down (if it happens) will be over Dems and Repubs unable to agree over a 2% cut in the budget.

That is 2 cents on every dollar.

Uhm, not it's not. It's 2% of the federal budget, which is not 2% of every dollar. 2% is also staggering sums of money and many, many people affected, not just a little here and there.

Dude. This isn't about you or me, and yes, if you could do the math 2% IS 2 cents of every dollar.

1 Dollar = 100 cents. so 2 cents would be 2% of a dollar. So of 2 cents of every dollar the Federal goverment takes in would be....2%

If they cut 2% of the budget you aren't going to save .02 out of every dollar you've paying in taxes.

Melissia wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:Please re-read the First Line. I am referring to those who pay taxes... they are considered "the rich."

No, they aren't. All the members of my family pay taxes, but we are by no means "the rich".

Same with a lot of middle class families.

And it's not like Congress is poor, what with the fact that they don't pay taxes.....

The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

I disagree. Rich people benefit greatly from the security and stability that the government provides much more than poor people. When you have five houses that are vacant most of the time and a legal system that says a poor person cant claim squatters rights, you are gaining from the political construct.

Poor people are dependent on a system created and established by the rich. It is to the Rich's benefit that these people be taken care of.

Now I agree that the benefits the Poor receive need to be better regulated. The Rich must however be careful with the opportunities they provide. When work is outsourced and people have less opportunity to work, well the Rich are creating a situation to their own peril.

Like I said the Rich and the Poor have both been running around rampantly. But the Poor really have little fear of a government collapse, they will be poor either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110406/people_nm/us_palin_earnings_5

Kind of a stupid example, but here is a opportunity that no poor single mother will ever get. "Bristol Palin was paid more than $260,500 advocating against teen pregnancy in 2009, tax documents released on Tuesday show".

She's advocating against teen pregnancy! Isn't that really the only reason anyone knows who she is?

Ron Paul 2012!

Manstein wrote:Ron Paul 2012!

I do like libertarians better than dems or repubs, but he isn't the answer, he's a little nutty, but better than most of the alternatives.