%@#%@ the unions!

[Tom Ace]

You still haven't outlined what your basing your estimation of what the rich "should" pay on.

Yes, I have. You need to calculate how much revenue you need, and then determine who can pay what. Right now, we can lower our spending, but we still need more taxes. The lower and middle classes can't afford much, if any, more, which would mean the upper class would be responsible.

You said the deficit, but never address how much you think of current spending is necessary.

I didn't realize we were planning on getting into breaking down the budget. It's also not necessary for the discussion that's been going on.

You haven't even shown that raising taxes to your acceptable levels, would close budget gaps.

You haven't shown your tax proposals would be sustainable, and spending wouldn't out pace revenue in the future... have you look at projected social security and Medicaid pay outs for the next few decades as the baby boomers retire.

You've failed to address or even acknowledged how your tax rates would effect economic activity, adjusting the revenue/expenditures again. You refuse to accept tax policy effects economic activity and job creation. You simply say you don't want to raise taxes to the point people quit starting businesses and creating jobs... but is the level that stifles economic growth enough to close the budget gap?

You've failed to address the role demographics plays in economic policy.

You've done nothing be claim the "rich" (you haven't even defined "rich") need to pay their "fair share." And pulled some number out of your hat you claim is "fair share." BTW your numbers hit the middle and lower classes with large tax hikes, but then you say the rich should pay more because they have too much of a burden now.

This is not a reasoned discussion, its just you repeating the rich should pay more in taxes.

Well, that was a waste of time. Here's the deal. We need more tax revenue and less spending. The tax revenue can't realistically come from the middle and lower classes, or at least not much of it, so it falls on the rich.

You can continue to claim we need to talk specifics, but we don't really. do you deny that we need to not only close the budget deficit, but achieve a budget surplus to pay for our debt? Do you think there is enough in the budget that we can do that without raising some taxes? Do you think the middle and lower classes can pay any more, let alone enough more to make that happen? Do you think the top 1.5% of the country pays enough in taxes as it is?

I haven't failed to address anything. We're having a debate. I've proposed my ideas. If you have a problem with them, explain your problems, and I can respond to them. Don't just vaguely say "You've failed to address this, this and this" when I haven't.

 

[byteware]

Why don't we just keep it up until everyone is paying the right share of the taxes? That would be the better plan, which is why I propose it.

The top 10% makes 5 times what the bottom 90% make... but they pay 21 times the taxes... seems like that needs to swing the other way until things are a little more "fair" don't you think?

They don't have to justify it, but it definitely is a privilege we give them. The CEO of a company is only rich because of the workers making 1/235 of his salary.

Being allowed to keep the money they EARN is a privilege we GIVE them?

And here I thought owning property was such a basic right that it wasn't even required that it be enumerated in the constitution.

OK, and since that's done, now we're asking for the rich to contribute what they should.

The top 10% earn 5 times what the bottom 90% do... and pay 21 times the taxes... exactly how many times more should they pay?

That's exactly right. That's why everyone should contribute what they reasonably can. That means the rich contribute more than they are now.

What they reasonably can? If a poor person has satellite TV, or a XBOX 360, then they reasonable CAN contribute at least a couple hundred dollars a year... but they don't.

It's sad that you can't actually argue against what I'm really saying, so you resort to twisting and mischaracterizing it, so that you can continue to argue against it. If you don't want to fix computers, you probably shouldn't get a job as helpdesk support. If you don't want to pay your fair share in taxes, then you shouldn't make that much money.

You stated that if they didn't want to support the entire country, then they shouldn't be rich...

Taxes aren't optional and are exacted by the threat of force (prison).

So, if they didn't want to have their money taken by the threat of prison, then they shouldn't be rich... that's exactly your point...

Or they'd take over the business and all make more money, but then I'm not assuming that all of those people would be complete morons.

Yes, because all it takes to run a business is... don't be a complete moron. That's why CEO's get paid so much, because they aren't complete morons... forget the different languages that they often speak, the 24/7 schedule they must keep to deal with the different parts of a multi-national organization... they just simply aren't morons.

Let's go with a real number at 70%. And that includes non-rich people. I already explained how it's not their fair share. You're welcome to go back and read it.

The top 10% make 5 times what the bottom 90% make, and pay 21 times the taxes... we differ on how that's not fair.

Yes, everyone has a responsibility to support the government. Some can't pay taxes because they make so little, though.

So, what you are saying is that 47% of the country is failing in their responsibility, so we need to take more from those that are being responsible.

 

[Bob Maxey]

FYI: Here are three tax experts you might want to listen to. They are discussing fiscal responsibility Vs. raising taxes on the rich:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA90IlymdZ4

 

[Tom Ace]

I'd say we need spending cuts and increased revenue... that increased revenue could be achieved with higher taxes, or increased economic activity or both... thats the point I'm trying to get across to you, your hyper focused on making the "rich" pay their "fair share," a very subjective argument.

Obviously a better economy helps everything. But that's a slow process. We've already seen what happens when you give tax cuts and help to the rich. That's why we're in the mess we're in. The point I'm trying to get across to you is that currently the top 1.5% of the country doesn't pay enough taxes.

If you can make magic proposals like that, so can I, I propose we balance the budget without tax increases.

Government spending is going to climb, fast, as baby boomers retire and start collecting social security. Raising taxes to meet 2015 levels doesn't mean you have enough to meet 2020 levels. You get stuck in a tax raising cycle, until you've destroyed your class of tax payers and job creators.

Ah, so you're talking about normal increases. Yes, obviously you need to account for inflation and such. I'm not sure what's so hard here. You determine what you need and you bring in that amount.

but your focused on this raise taxes on the rich as the answer to everything.

Nope, but you seem focused on the idea that I'm focused on that idea.

Can you even show if raising taxes to your proposed levels would balance the budget? Would raising taxes to the levels required to balance the budget slow economic growth?

Raising taxes alone will not balance the budget. I'm not sure how many times I have to go through this.

Your not thinking enough, thats the problem.

Yeah, clearly that's the problem, because I'm not the one who can't understand simple concepts.

Yes, these people need to get jobs, providing a service or a product. That requires someone to start a business, providing a service/good, then the extra people can get these jobs. If it was that simple why do the countries with the fastest growing populations also have people starving in the street and huge unemployment?

I've already explained this. The countries with the fastest growing populations don't have stable economies or good environments. It's very simple, and one of the most basic economic concepts. More demand means more supply. You have more people, you have more demand, therefore you'll have more supply.

 

[Tom Ace]

Perhaps it is time to give up. Some of you have tried to use actual facts to support well understood economic principals. And some prefer to ignore the facts and go on their merry way thinking they actually know a thing or two.

Bob

Yup, I probably should give up, since I've used actual facts to support well-understood economic principals, while others ignore the facts and go on their merry way thinking they actually know a thing or two. But I feel like trying to get people to acknowledge the facts and understand reality. You're probably right that my efforts are futile, though.

 

[Tom Ace]

That's how i do it at my house ... i decide what i need, and then i go get the money .... oh ... dang ... that doesn't work ....

Wait a minute...you're not implying there might be a difference in the way a government in charge of 300 million people works and the way a household of a few people works, are you? What a revelation!

 

[Tom Ace]

They make 5 times more... and pay 21 times more in taxes.

That seems fair.

The problem is you're too caught up on those numbers. When you put them in context, that's when you can decide whether they're fair or not.

No, they don't have a "much bigger responsibility", just because they earn more money.

Actually they do.

What you are saying is that some people have absolutely NO responsibility.

You could say that. Someone making $12,000 a year supporting themselves doesn't have a responsibility to pay taxes. That's true. But in another way of looking at it, everyone has the responsibility to do what they can.

See, by this definition then those that receive free money from this country have a MUCH bigger responsibility than those that EARN their money.

Those rich people earning big salaries aren't getting from this country, they are earning money.

The only people getting from this country are leeches.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the situation. Those rich people are most definitely getting from this country. This country provides them with the environment to make all of that money, and their workers make all of that possible. And many of them aren't earning that money. Big bank CEOs aren't creating jobs, but they're getting paid many millions of dollars.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize taxes were voluntary.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you don't understand what misleading language is.

Unless you are intellectual dishonest, you should agree that a society that has one group supported by another is bound to collapse upon itself unless something is done to force the leeching group to become self sufficient.

That's true. So, the rich should stop leeching off of the rest of the country, and that won't happen.

Again, this goes back to taxes being optional, and there's no jail time associated with not paying your taxes.

Taxes are taken by threat of force. If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. Period.

As I said, it's no wonder you have the ideas you have with those glasses on. Take them off and see the world how it really is sometime.

 

[cipher6]

Yes, I have. You need to calculate how much revenue you need, and then determine who can pay what. Right now, we can lower our spending, but we still need more taxes. The lower and middle classes can't afford much, if any, more, which would mean the upper class would be responsible.

So do you plan on recalculating the tax code every year as spending changes?

Or should you adjust spending as your revenue increases and decreases?

I didn't realize we were planning on getting into breaking down the budget. It's also not necessary for the discussion that's been going on.

If your trying to figure out whats a "fair" tax level to meet current spending requirements, what your spending on is VERY relevant. Your asking a small class of people, to fund government spending, don't you think we should take a look at what we're spending it on?


...

Let me ask you this, what tax rate do you think is unfairly high?

...

Well, that was a waste of time. Here's the deal. We need more tax revenue and less spending. The tax revenue can't realistically come from the middle and lower classes, or at least not much of it, so it falls on the rich.

But raising taxes isn't the only way to increase tax revenue... thats something you just ignore over and over again.

do you deny that we need to not only close the budget deficit, but achieve a budget surplus to pay for our debt?

No, we should do those things.

Do you think there is enough in the budget that we can do that without raising some taxes?

yes. And so does Obama's debt commission.

Debt commission puts out preliminary proposals - Nov. 10, 2010

I haven't failed to address anything. We're having a debate. I've proposed my ideas. If you have a problem with them, explain your problems, and I can respond to them. Don't just vaguely say "You've failed to address this, this and this" when I haven't.

My problem is your hyper focus on taxing the "rich" their "fair share" and not taking into account the many other factors that effect economic policy.

Economic policy and tax code isn't as simple as having a list of spending, then taxing everyone until you get enough, thats over simplistic and unsustainable.

 

[byteware]

The problem is you're too caught up on those numbers. When you put them in context, that's when you can decide whether they're fair or not.

Ok... top 10% makes 5 times more than the bottom 90%... they pay 21 times the taxes... put that in context for me.

Actually they do.

In your opinion.

You could say that. Someone making $12,000 a year supporting themselves doesn't have a responsibility to pay taxes. That's true. But in another way of looking at it, everyone has the responsibility to do what they can.

So, you have those that are responsible for supporting the government, and those for whom the government is responsible for supporting... yeah, this seems like a sustainable setup.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the situation. Those rich people are most definitely getting from this country. This country provides them with the environment to make all of that money, and their workers make all of that possible. And many of them aren't earning that money. Big bank CEOs aren't creating jobs, but they're getting paid many millions of dollars.

Who are YOU to decide if a Big Bank CEO is EARNING that money?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you don't understand what misleading language is.

I'm sorry you don't understand that people who don't pay their taxes go to jail.

That's true. So, the rich should stop leeching off of the rest of the country, and that won't happen.

And here it comes down to this... the rich are leeching off the country, so they deserve to pay more in taxes... gotcha.

And I thought you said it wasn't about hating on the rich.

 

[cipher6]

the top 1.5% of the country doesn't pay enough taxes.

Says who?

Ah, so you're talking about normal increases. Yes, obviously you need to account for inflation and such. I'm not sure what's so hard here. You determine what you need and you bring in that amount.

But if every year you determine you need more, (because oh I don't know, you have a large population of people about to retire and collect SS, but not enough young workers to pay into the system and offset that) so you tax more, eventually you can tax away the whole economy, then how does your boss pay you?

 

[Tom Ace]

The top 10% makes 5 times what the bottom 90% make... but they pay 21 times the taxes... seems like that needs to swing the other way until things are a little more "fair" don't you think?

Nope, not considering what happens when you put those numbers in context. Sure, it appears unfair when you don't take into account all of the relevant facts, but once you do, you realize it's not unfair at all. That was the point of my breaking it down earlier. I'm sorry that didn't get through, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Being allowed to keep the money they EARN is a privilege we GIVE them?

And here I thought owning property was such a basic right that it wasn't even required that it be enumerated in the constitution.

Yes, being able to make all of that money is a privilege. What's so hard to understand about that?

The top 10% earn 5 times what the bottom 90% do... and pay 21 times the taxes... exactly how many times more should they pay?

They should pay the correct proportional amount. I thought I made that clear.

What they reasonably can? If a poor person has satellite TV, or a XBOX 360, then they reasonable CAN contribute at least a couple hundred dollars a year... but they don't.

Ah, OK. I assumed you might have these misunderstanding, and now you've confirmed. Generally people with satellite TV and an XBOX pays taxes. I see what you really have a problem with is the .0001% of the population that mooches off the system. There are those people, but they're always going to be there. All we can do is do our best to minimize the instances of that while maximizing help for the people who really need it.

You stated that if they didn't want to support the entire country, then they shouldn't be rich...

I stated that if someone doesn't want the responsibility that goes along with their position, they shouldn't take the position.

Yes, because all it takes to run a business is... don't be a complete moron. That's why CEO's get paid so much, because they aren't complete morons... forget the different languages that they often speak, the 24/7 schedule they must keep to deal with the different parts of a multi-national organization... they just simply aren't morons.

Wow, it's incredible how you can just move in different, irrelevant directions with things. Well done, but this has nothing to do with anything, other than distracting from any real points.

The top 10% make 5 times what the bottom 90% make, and pay 21 times the taxes... we differ on how that's not fair.

Yes, we do. That's because I know how to put facts in context, and apparently you don't.

So, what you are saying is that 47% of the country is failing in their responsibility, so we need to take more from those that are being responsible.

Nope, I'm saying that 47% of the country are contributing what they can. It's not their fault the rules are set against them. Again, if the rich people want to have the poor people make twice what they're making, the poor will gladly contribute some taxes.

 

[Tom Ace]

FYI: Here are three tax experts you might want to listen to. They are discussing fiscal responsibility Vs. raising taxes on the rich:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA90IlymdZ4

Ah, now we see the problem. I feel I should tell you this is not a good resource for your economic ideas. The good part is that the solution is simple. All you have to do is stop getting your economic ideas from places like this, and you should be fine.

 

[Slug]

A couple of requests if this thread is to remain open....

1. Leave out the personal remarks. I'm starting to see some unacceptable words creeping into the discussion - attack the message, not the messenger.

2. Ensure any quoted text is attributable, please. Readers need to know who said what it is you're responding to without having to trawl back through previous posts to work it out. This also avoids inadvertent misunderstandings.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Wait a minute...you're not implying there might be a difference in the way a government in charge of 300 million people works and the way a household of a few people works, are you? What a revelation!

Yes ... because our current system of spend spend spend has been working so well.

 

[Tom Ace]

So do you plan on recalculating the tax code every year as spending changes?

Or should you adjust spending as your revenue increases and decreases?

A little of both. As situations change, things like the tax code may need to change. Spending may also need to change.

If your trying to figure out whats a "fair" tax level to meet current spending requirements, what your spending on is VERY relevant. Your asking a small class of people, to fund government spending, don't you think we should take a look at what we're spending it on?

I'm not trying to figure out what's fair to meet current spending. I'm trying to figure out what spending is required and what tax levels will accomplish that.

Let me ask you this, what tax rate do you think is unfairly high?

That's hard to say in such general terms. If we're talking about income over $10 million, it's hard to say what would be unfair. Obviously 100% is unfair. I'll say that 90% is probably too much. Beyond that, I can't commit to anything without all the details.

But raising taxes isn't the only way to increase tax revenue... thats something you just ignore over and over again.

Sure, you can get more people to work and then pay taxes. But that's not going to solve any problems. I haven't ignored that, but "having a better economy" isn't the answer. We had a great economy, and look where we are now.

No, we should do those things.

yes. And so does Obama's debt commission.

Debt commission puts out preliminary proposals - Nov. 10, 2010

Did you even read that? Part of the proposal is tax increases.

My problem is your hyper focus on taxing the "rich" their "fair share" and not taking into account the many other factors that effect economic policy.

Economic policy and tax code isn't as simple as having a list of spending, then taxing everyone until you get enough, thats over simplistic and unsustainable.

Yes, that's simplistic because we're not a couple of economists sitting here talking. There's obviously a lot more to it than that, but that's the basic concept. It's like evolution is basically lifeforms changing over time to adapt to their environment. Of course there's a lot more to it than that, but that's the basic idea.

My problem is your hyperfocus on this aspect. Many thing need to happen, but one of them is adjusting tax levels.

 

[cipher6]

They should pay the correct proportional amount. I thought I made that clear.

What the hell is the "correct porportional amount?" Thats why everyone is getting so frustrated with you. You just say they should pay, "more" a "fair share" a "correct" amount, but you have no formula for determining that amount, its just what ever you want it to be.

Generally people with satellite TV and an XBOX pays taxes.

You do realize, 1/3 of people who filed tax returns had 0 tax liability right? And of those 1/3, 1/2 actually got free money back.

Yes, we do. That's because I know how to put facts in context, and apparently you don't.

What context are we missing? You said the top 20% are "rich." and should pay their "fair share."

The top 20% has a lower limit of $88,030. That means if you and your wife make $44,000 a year, your considered "rich," and according to you, not paying your "fair share."

 

[Tom Ace]

Ok... top 10% makes 5 times more than the bottom 90%... they pay 21 times the taxes... put that in context for me.

I already did. It helps if you actually read what I write. Quickly, the average 10%er makes $335,000 and pays $62,000 in taxes. The average 90%er makes $44,000 and pays $3,000. Then we go back to how valuable those amounts are. $3,000 out of $44,000 is a much bigger hit than $62,000 out of $335,000. The 10%er after taxes still makes over 5 times what the 90%er makes before taxes.

In your opinion.

Yes, in my opinion based on facts and logic.

Who are YOU to decide if a Big Bank CEO is EARNING that money?

I don't really care whether they are or not. To me it's not important to how much tax they're paying. But you and others pretend that all rich people are working hard and earning their money. I'm merely pointing out that that's not the case.

I'm sorry you don't understand that people who don't pay their taxes go to jail.

I'm sorry you don't understand the idea of misleading language.

And here it comes down to this... the rich are leeching off the country, so they deserve to pay more in taxes... gotcha.

Actually, not all of them are. I was just responding to your comment.

And I thought you said it wasn't about hating on the rich.

I did. That's because it's not about hating the rich. What I do hate is this myth that the rich are all hard-working, upstanding people who earn all the money they have.

 

[Tom Ace]

Says who?

Says the amount of taxes they pay compared to everyone else.

 

[Tom Ace]

Yes ... because our current system of spend spend spend has been working so well.

Who said it was? I've specifically said it hasn't. My point was comparing how you run your household to how we run the government as if they both work the same is wrong.

 

[cipher6]

Did you even read that? Part of the proposal is tax increases.

Did you read it?

Reform tax code: The report would lower income tax rates and simplify the tax code.

Set targets for revenue and spending: The report recommends that taxes be capped at 21% of gross domestic product.

Some more bullet points from their report:

Don’t Disrupt a Fragile Economic Recovery
 Start gradually; begin cuts in FY 2012.

Cut and Invest to Promote Economic Growth and Keep
America Competitive
 Cut red tape and inefficient spending that puts a drag on
the economy and job creation.
 Invest in education, infrastructure, and high-value R&D.


Reform and Simplify the Tax Code
 Broaden base, lower rates, and bring down the deficit.
 Make America the best place to start and run a business and
create jobs.
 Cap revenue at or below 21% of GDP.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf



Basically the opposite of everything you've been saying.

 

[Tom Ace]

What the hell is the "correct porportional amount?" Thats why everyone is getting so frustrated with you. You just say they should pay, "more" a "fair share" a "correct" amount, but you have no formula for determining that amount, its just what ever you want it to be.

The correct proportional amount would be an amount that didn't increase wealth disparity at the rate we've seen over the past 30 years. I don't have exact numbers for you, sorry. There's no need for them. Asking for them is just a way to try to "get" me.

What context are we missing? You said the top 20% are "rich." and should pay their "fair share."

See, this is part of the problem. You only see what you want to. When I used the 20% number, I specifically said multiple times that I was being very generous. The point of using that number was to exaggerate the number of rich people to show that even if you do that, they're not nearly the only ones paying taxes.

The real percentage for the rich designation is around 2%, but the ones who really aren't paying their fair share would be about 1.5%.

The top 20% has a lower limit of $88,030. That means if you and your wife make $44,000 a year, your considered "rich," and according to you, not paying your "fair share."

Nope, not according to me; according to your faulty reading of my posts. This is exactly why I said using that number is very generous.

 

[cipher6]

What I do hate is this myth that the rich are all hard-working, upstanding people who earn all the money they have.

You said the top 20% are "rich." That means most middle class families with 2 wage earners are "rich."

"The vast majority of working families trying to put their kids through college have moved into the upper income groups, or the so-called "rich'," says Hodge. "If you and your spouse both make an average of $18 per hour, you're in the highest fifth of taxpayers."

I think your the one perpetuating a myth about the "rich."

 

[JimmyRayBob]

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the situation. Those rich people are most definitely getting from this country. This country provides them with the environment to make all of that money, and their workers make all of that possible. And many of them aren't earning that money. Big bank CEOs aren't creating jobs, but they're getting paid many millions of dollars.

Big Bank CEO #1. Mediocre at his job. Company doesn't flourish, doesn't flounder. Nothing major happens. No jobs created. No jobs lost.

Big Bank CEO #2. Lousy at his job. Bad decisions, company does really poorly. Stock price plummets. Jobs are lost.

Big Bank CEO #3. Great at his job, great decisions, company stock price rises, company expands, lots of jobs created. Uh oh .... CEO of the big bank just created jobs.

Now, when the board of directors hires a CEO- which one do they think they are hiring? The think they are getting #3, so they pay him accordingly. of course they don't have a crystal ball, so they can't see the future.



Now what is wrong with getting rich? I posed this question earlier: What about the CEO of a company that owns and operates a chain of miniature golf courses. These are in tourist locations ... no one is being taken advantage of. Is it the workers that made this possible? Or is it his investment of time and capital that made it possible?

 

[Tom Ace]

Did you read it?





Some more bullet points from their report:



http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf



Basically the opposite of everything you've been saying.

Yes, I read it, which is why I understand it. It's saying exactly what I'm saying. Remember when I said to lower tax rates while getting rid of deductions and exemptions? That's exactly what they're saying.

You left out these bits:

"Three quarters of the $4 trillion would be achieved through spending cuts -- including defense -- and the rest from more tax revenue."

"It would abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax -- the so-called wealth tax -- and reduce tax breaks."

That second part is part of your first quote that you conveniently left out.

Lowering tax rates doesn't mean lowering taxes, as I pointed out earlier. They'd still be increasing taxes, but mostly by eliminating tax breaks.

 

[Tom Ace]

You said the top 20% are "rich." That means most middle class families with 2 wage earners are "rich."

Again, you need to read more carefully.

I think your the one perpetuating a myth about the "rich."

I don't doubt that you think that, but you're also wrong. The myth about the rich is that they're all hard-working and they earn all of their money. Nothing I've said about them is incorrect or a myth. You're welcome to try to point out support for your statement, though.