Sequestration is BOVINE CACA!!!!

[Gmash]

Why do the rich love the idea of the flat tax? Because they know it means a huge tax cut for them, and a huge tax increase for the poor and middle class. It's a terrible idea. We have always had a progressive tax code because it is more fair. The rich can afford to contribute more. How is that demonizing, persecuting or attacking them? Historically, their taxes are still not that high, and THEY ARE STILL RICH!!! It's kind of hard to feel sorry for Mitt Romney and his 14% tax rate.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Why do the rich love the idea of the flat tax? Because they know it means a huge tax cut for them, and a huge tax increase for the poor and middle class. It's a terrible idea. We have always had a progressive tax code because it is more fair. The rich can afford to contribute more. How is that demonizing, persecuting or attacking them? Historically, their taxes are still not that high, and THEY ARE STILL RICH!!! It's kind of hard to feel sorry for Mitt Romney and his 14% tax rate.

Actually it doesn't. The flat taxes that I've seen thrown around apply to non-essentials, not essential stuff and those living at the poverty line pay nothing at all (which they already pay anyway). The rich would actually pay more as they tend to consume more than the poor and the middle class and there would be no tax loopholes to get around it either.

 

[Gmash]

Actually it doesn't. The flat taxes that I've seen thrown around apply to non-essentials, not essential stuff and those living at the poverty line pay nothing at all (which they already pay anyway). The rich would actually pay more as they tend to consume more than the poor and the middle class and there would be no tax loopholes to get around it either.

It sounds like you are talking about a national sales tax, not a flat tax, but that still hits the poor harder percentage wise because they spend almost all of their income. You can give them a tax credit to cover a certain amount, but they would still have to wait until tax time to recoup.

 

[A.Nonymous]

It sounds like you are talking about a national sales tax, not a flat tax, but that still hits the poor harder percentage wise because they spend almost all of their income. You can give them a tax credit to cover a certain amount, but they would still have to wait until tax time to recoup.

Doh! You're right. All you'd have to do is cut the tax credit check every month.

 

[SiempreTuna]

I do read the New York Times almost every work day as there is typically one floating around the office, along with The Washington Post, USA Today, and The Washington Times. I can tell you that you’re claim that they show both sides is incorrect. Even if the story is somewhat neutral, they always have a twist in it to the left

If you present both sides of an argument, then come down on one, that is balance.

Nor should they pay a higher percentage in taxes

It's called progressive taxation and has been deemed fair by all but the most extreme for the last century or more.

Plus, the point I made was that in fact, the rich pay a LOWER effective percentage than the rest. Something that is undisputed - look it up.

Is that how CNN portrays it?

It's how anyone able to observe sees it.

The rich decide, via their 'contributions' (read bribes), the laws that are passed.

Those laws that are passed rarely affect the rich - hardly anyone involved in the biggest series of frauds in history that almost brought down the global economy, has gone to jail. The conviction rate for the rich is fraction of that of the poor.

Do I really need to go on ..?

All I am saying is that if the rich are going to be taxed at a higher percentage, they deserve something

They already get pretty much everything!

In order to save the banks and wall street, we had the biggest transfer of wealth IN HISTORY from the poor to the rich but 5 years ago.

If poor people struggle, they're deamonised as wasters. When the rich struggle, they're bailed out.

Again, I am NOT rich, I just feel that everyone should be taxed at the same percentage

LMAO

I'm afraid all I can say to that is that you really have been suckered by the GOP and their fellow travellers.

How are they benefiting more from society?

See above.

By going to school and building up a business from nothing

You do know that the majority of rich people inherited their money?

And their rich parents paid for them to go to the best schools.

They DO pay more, and this is a mathematical fact

That depends how you measure it.

The 1% owns 35.4% of net wealth and 42% of non-property wealth of the US (2010 figures) but only pay 30.2% of income tax.

As previously mentioned, they also pay a lower effective tax rate than others.

None of this is news: Warren Buffet (one of the riches people in the world and one it's most successful capitalist) said that the fact he pays 11% on his billions and his secretary pays 30% of her $60K will "hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation"

However, they should NOT be taxed at a higher PERCENTAGE. Perhaps the poor should look at it as motivation to do better. After all, they are the ones who are getting government handouts.

Warren Buffet again:

If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.

Yes, I said that everyone should be taxed at the same rate as it is everyone’s country. What is wrong with this?

Warren Buffet again:

The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.

Now you are questioning my integrity, and I do not take too kindly to that. I mearly questioned someone’s intelligence, and I get reported to a moderator, but you are allowed to question my integrity?

I'm merely pointing out to you that what you have declared are your views are demonstrably (i.e. I just demonstrated) unfair and NOT equal. So what I'm saying is you're WRONG.

Yes, I do believe in equality

Again, you may think that but the views you express show that it is simply not true.

Sadly wanting to punish the upper class for the size of their bank account isn’t fair.

They're not punished, they're expected their fair share. Unlike the poor who are forced to pay MORE than their fair share.

Perhaps we should start taxing people on unemployment too?

The unemployed ARE taxed - for example, they have to pay sales taxes.

Why demonize and disenfranchise the rich because they’re rich?

They're simply not demonized and they're certain not disenfranchised - arguably they control the entire franchise.

If I paid to go to college, saved my money, and eventually start my own business and have it boom, why punish me? (I only wish that I could do that in the future lol!) It does go both ways, if you want to admit to it or not!

Why give you a free ride, too? You should pay your way.

I’ve seen plenty of poor white people, so your argument is somewhat racist

Do you actually read what you're replying to?

"which includes a disproportionate number of blacks"

That does NOT mean there are no poor white people. It means the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Plus, it's simple, documented, undisputed (by anyone serious) fact.

But why? It is a constitutional amendment.

The constitution is just law. It can be changed like any other law. The clue is the name: the second amendment.

What if the democrats wanted to do away with the freedom of religion or speech? Or freedom of the press? (Moderators: this is NOT a personal attack, just a question.)

I think you'll find that it's the Republicans under Bush who most recently curtailed free speach and freedom of the press.

The democrats haven't revoked these laws, but the republicans would have to agree to this and the republicans continue to refuse to agree to anything.

I bet you would support that, right?

No. I have never supported the Republican measure to curtail freedom of speech, the press etc. My views are progressive: the polar opposite of those.

They should not even touch it…it might just open Pandora’s Box

They should revoke it then introduce sensible gun controls without some confused 200 year old compromise (long history - look it up) phrasing confusing the issue.

I am not okay with anyone scamming unemployment when I pay for it through my taxes

Err .. no-one said you were.

Most politicians will do anything for a vote, so I am sure that money is not always an issue.

Really?

Did you completely miss the last presidential election? The GOP's entire strategy was based around getting and spending more money than the opposition. To the extent that they didn't even bother talking about their policies beyohd the vaguest of outlines.

 

[ItnStln511]

We have always had a progressive tax code because it is more fair.

Except it is NOT!

The rich can afford to contribute more.

True, but why should they? They worked for what they have, and are getting no handouts. Why should they fund everyone else

 

[rpstrongbad]

Ballance the budget! That's all I want

 

[ItnStln511]

Ballance the budget! That's all I want

Thank you! And now with this sequestration, the Defense Contractors and Military are going to be working harder because the DOD Civilians will not be working as much. I'm actually glad that the civilians in my office are useless!

 

[A.Nonymous]

I would like to see either party actually tackle the deficit. Neither party has ever tried to do that.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Except it is NOT!

Except that it has generally been accepted as fair since ancient Greek times. It's only in the last few years that a few falling-off-the-edge right wing nutters have even thought to question it's fairness. The fact that they do, kinda reinforces it's validity in the eyes of pretty much anyone with an ounce of common sense.

True, but why should they? They worked for what they have, and are getting no handouts. Why should they fund everyone else’s handouts?

Err - have been asleep the last 5 years?

The rich were bailed out by Bush and have since been regularly receiving vast hand outs in the form of quantitve easing almost every month.

The poor also work for what they get: why should they have to pay a greater proportion of the little they get than the rich do? You know that most rich people pay around a third of the effective tax rate of the middle class, right?

Easy. You are punishing the rich because of their income. What percentage of the rich got their money from handouts?

All of 'em - the banks were not allowed to fail because the rich would have lost almost everything.

What percentage of the rich worked hard for their income, and got no handouts along the way?

Zero percent - or as close as makes no difference. See above.

All I am saying is that what you are wanting is essentially discrimination

You've got that completely arse-about-face.

The rich DOES spend more.

Proportionately, they spend much, much less.

Not just the poor, but even many of the middle class simply don't earn enough to save, ergo, they spend 100% of their income. Some spend more (via borrowing).

The rich do not spend anything approaching that proportion of their income. When you give them more, via tax cuts for example, it is proven fact that the majority of the money does not get spent so does not provide any stimulous.

It's throwing money away and increasing the deficit for zero gain.

Ballance the budget! That's all I want

The most effective way of doing that is to grow the economy: over the last 12 months, the deficit has been cut by around $85 billion or 7.8%. This has come from rising tax revenue and falling spending on unemployment and social services.

If you cut government spending now, while the economy is still weak, you get what we currently have in the UK which is a shrinking economy which results in shrinking tax revenue and rising spending on unemployment and social services, which has resulted in a growing deficit.

What you should do is get your economy going then cut spending when things are going well thereby producing a surplus which you use to pay down the national debt. This in turn, reduces interest payment, thereby further increasing the surplus.

When the economy goes tits-up again, this surplus helps cover the drop in taxes and increase in payments and the low debt produces low interest on borrowing that you can use to re-stimulate the economy.

Simple economics. We've known about it since the 30s.

This was all set to work under Clinton, unfortunately as soon as Bush got in he threw the surplus away on tax cuts, created a deficit and increased the debt instead of paying it down.

Result: the biggest deficit and the biggest national debt in global history.

Bush's strategy worked out so well that it's GOP policy (and Conservatives policy here) to do it all over again.

I keep coming back to that thing about repeating the same actions and expecting a different outcome. Now, what was it that defined, again?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Everyone should pay equally or at least in proportion to what they actually consume, not what they earn. There's just no logical reason why successful people should be punished financially. Then people scratch their heads in confusion when people spend tons of money and effort sheltering their assets so they pay less taxes. Why do you think that is? The idea that rich people were once poor people sitting on their asses and then suddenly they became rich is laughable. 80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires. Where do you think that came from?

A national sales tax would address the problem because the rich do consume more than the poor. Proportionally doesn't matter. In terms of gross consumption, the rich consume more.

I would vote for any party that actually came up with a workable plan to pay down the national debt. Currently it's at ~$147k per tax payer. Good times. Good times. In my life time I've never seen either party actually even pretend like they wanted to pay it off. Let's not forget that the debt went up under Clinton the same way it did every other President.

 

[ItnStln511]

I would like to see either party actually tackle the deficit. Neither party has ever tried to do that.

Good luck getting the Republicans and Democtats to work together. One wants to cut spending, while the other wants to increase spending and taxes. They

 

[SiempreTuna]

Everyone should pay equally or at least in proportion to what they actually consume, not what they earn. There's just no logical reason why successful people should be punished financially.

Read back the responses made every other time you made this identical, totally bogus point. It has been thoroughly refuted.

Then people scratch their heads in confusion when people spend tons of money and effort sheltering their assets so they pay less taxes. Why do you think that is?

Because they're greedy, selfish, ungrateful swine?

80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires. Where do you think that came from?

Is there an actual source for that or did you just make it up?

A national sales tax would address the problem because the rich do consume more than the poor. Proportionally doesn't matter. In terms of gross consumption, the rich consume more.

Again. You make the same point, that has already been refuted, over and over again.

Next time, wny not just put "ditto my last post", save yourself a lot of typing?

I would vote for any party that actually came up with a workable plan to pay down the national debt. Currently it's at ~$147k per tax payer.

And there you go contradicting everything you just said!

Cutting taxes on the rich is PROVEN to INCREASE the deficit and consequently increase the rate at which national debt INCREASES.

So not only does it not help, it makes things get worse faster!

That's not a guess: that's what happened when Bush did it. He turned the greatest ever surplus - that had been expected to clear the national debit within a decade - into the greatest ever deficit and the greatest ever debt.

Good times. Good times. In my life time I've never seen either party actually even pretend like they wanted to pay it off.

That's actually true!

OMG!

They all talk about reducing deficits and then debt, but none have actually done much about it.

Let's not forget that the debt went up under Clinton the same way it did every other President.

Don't know if that's true and can't be arsed to check - be good if I didn't have to, unfortunately most assertions I find on here turn out to be completely wrong when you make the most basic of checks .. so I'm just going to take a punt and say you're statistically most likely to have made that up

Even if it is true, for the last couple of years of his presidency, the US was running a surplus and (presumably) paying down national debt.

Over the last year, the deficit has been falling. Clearly it has a long way to go, but Republican plans would all end with it going up (as described above).

 

[sntaylor]

One thing some people seem to forget about is that without the poor or middle wage group, then the rich would not be rich.



I guarantee there is not one single rich person who earned their fortune without the help of anyone in the public sector/other wage brackets...wether that is directly our indirectly, Employees need state education, so if you want employees capable of working for you, you owe the state.

If you want people to buy your products or services you need everyone else,because we are all indirectly associated the rich didn't get where they are without everyone else so it is only fair they pay back into the system that was able to help them so much. The only way any system can work is if the rich do pay slightly more taxes Percentage wise!
If the poor pay too much percentage wise they have no cash to buy things to give money to the rich, and if the rich don't pay more then there isn't enough money to fund things like education, police etc! My Swype has been playing up since chrome updated so hopefully I managed to correct the Muck ups!

 

[A.Nonymous]

One thing some people seem to forget about is that without the poor or middle wage group, then the rich would not be rich.



I guarantee there is not one single rich person who earned their fortune without the help of anyone in the public sector/other wage brackets...wether that is directly our indirectly, Employees need state education, so if you want employees capable of working for you, you owe the state.

If you want people to buy your products or services you need everyone else,because we are all indirectly associated the rich didn't get where they are without everyone else so it is only fair they pay back into the system that was able to help them so much. The only way any system can work is if the rich do pay slightly more taxes Percentage wise!
If the poor pay too much percentage wise they have no cash to buy things to give money to the rich, and if the rich don't pay more then there isn't enough money to fund things like education, police etc! My Swype has been playing up since chrome updated so hopefully I managed to correct the Muck ups!

That is true, but goes both ways. Without the rich there would be no poor/middle class as there would be no one driving demand for products. The rich demand luxury yachts. The middle class build/design them and have the money to demand fast food and ipods which the poor make and serve.

 

[Gmash]

"Then people scratch their heads in
confusion when people spend tons of money and effort sheltering their assets so
they pay less taxes. Why do you think that is?"

Greed?

 

[A.Nonymous]

"Then people scratch their heads in
confusion when people spend tons of money and effort sheltering their assets so
they pay less taxes. Why do you think that is?"

Greed?

This is what I don't get. The poor fight to keep what they have earned and it's considered laudable and to be admired. The rich fight to keep what they have earned it's considered greedy and terrible.

 

[ElasticNinja]

This is what I don't get. The poor fight to keep what they have earned and it's considered laudable and to be admired. The rich fight to keep what they have earned it's considered greedy and terrible.

Except the poor have been getting poorer since the 80s, while the rich are getting richer even while everyone else is stagnated. Important detail there.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Except the poor have been getting poorer since the 80s, while the rich are getting richer even while everyone else is stagnated. Important detail there.

True, well, truish but is that an indication that whatever the rich are doing works in good times or bad times or something else?

 

[ElasticNinja]

True, well, truish but is that an indication that whatever the rich are doing works in good times or bad times or something else?

I think it is an indication that the rich have the power to make themselves richer (without implying a conspiracy or such). However lower earners have seen an end of efforts to alleviate poverty, improve conditions and so on. Furthermore, in America everything has a direct cost, and as these things with a direct cost become more used by the upper middle class (Third level education, healthcare), while the working class cannot afford it. One hears of people going into $200k of debt just to continue their education - how can the poorer segments of society compete?!

 

[ItnStln511]

This is what I don't get. The poor fight to keep what they have earned and it's considered laudable and to be admired. The rich fight to keep what they have earned it's considered greedy and terrible.

You bring up a great point, as always, A.Nonymous. Perhaps one could view the poor as greedy for wanting to take from the rich, and the government via handouts?

 

[ElasticNinja]

You bring up a great point, as always, A.Nonymous. Perhaps one could view the poor as greedy for wanting to take from the rich, and the government via handouts?

How greedy of them, wanting a decent quality of life, healthcare, and an education for their kids. Damn proles.

 

[A.Nonymous]

How greedy of them, wanting a decent quality of life, healthcare, and an education for their kids. Damn proles.

Nothing wrong with wanting those things. The problem is wanting those things at the expense of people who have actually worked for them.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Nothing wrong with wanting those things. The problem is wanting those things at the expense of people who have actually worked for them.

I would argue those working lower wage jobs have worked for them. Wage isn't an indicator of the value of people. Just because their wage hasn't increased while their productivity has doesn't make them worthless.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Never said they were worthless. It's like this. Is there anything wrong with me wanting a Porsche? No. Is there anything wrong with me using force to take money from a rich person to pay for my Porsche? Yes. Is there anything wrong with me wanting a college education for my kids? No. Is there anything wrong with me robbing banks to fund said education? Yes. That's where the difference is.