- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 18, 2012 at 2:27 pm #602927
JoBParticipantOk.. here is another issue on which the Left/Right seem to differ ..
This is a well articulated thoughtful article from a progressive source that makes the argument that tax cuts for the wealthy are not only in our nation’s worst interests.. they are not earned by those who receive them.
http://www.nationofchange.org/five-reasons-why-very-rich-have-not-earned-their-money-1334670549
I don’t think this is going to go over any better than the War on Women post… but we will see.
April 18, 2012 at 3:21 pm #755533
JoBParticipantthe source of this article is a left leaning website..
but their source for the info…
and investors rag.. not so left at all…
http://www.bluestatepress.com/politics9/news_013.htm
reality bites…
April 18, 2012 at 4:36 pm #755534
mpentoParticipantApril 18, 2012 at 5:35 pm #755535
DBPMemberThank you JoB. May all your efforts at objectivity be rewarded.
At it’s heart, the article you linked revisits a problem that’s been troubling us since Cain slew Abel — or since the first hominid bashed in the skull of his neighbor over a soupbone. Namely: Do those who have more wealth and power than the rest of us really deserve it?
—Based on my own experience and observations I’m inclined to say no. And yet . . . AND YET . . . I know in my heart that if we were to wipe the slate clean, rewrite the program, and start the machine again from scratch, it would be only a matter of time before differentials of wealth and power reemerged. Ultimately, it wouldn’t matter what type of political or economic system we lived in, because the forces that lead to inequality among men can adapt themselves to any context, as history shows.
That’s not to say that we shouldn’t keep working on the problem of what’s most fair, or that we shouldn’t keep trying to level the playing field of opportunity as much as possible.
Jus’ min’ that the best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agly.
Whatever th’ heel ‘at means.
April 18, 2012 at 6:08 pm #755536
JVMemberObjective DBP? As an editor, wouldn’t a more objective title leave out “the wealthy” which is subjective, and also “Bush tax cuts” which is inaccurate since they were also extedned by Obama. I won’t dwell on it because I know she can’t help herself, but let’s not pretend here.
This link shows who pays the taxes:
In summary over the past decade,
The top 1% pay about 36-41%
The top 5% pay about 58-61%
The top 10% pay about 70%
So you think “the wealthy” aren’t paying enough? What tax rate is enough? I would love an honest answer to that one.
April 18, 2012 at 6:30 pm #755537
JVMemberHere is my article about our tax issue.
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/04/13/eat_the_rich
The main point is that the math doesn’t work because no matter how much we tax, it won’t help us until we get spending in order:
If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits…Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
So beyond the idea of getting back at the evil rich through tax policy what is the real solution here?
April 18, 2012 at 6:51 pm #755538
BostonmanMemberThe issue isn’t thatthe rich can pay little taces but more that even the middle class can lower their tax rates. My effective tax rate this year was 8.5% and no I am not rich. Until the ways to take deductions and avoid moving money offshore we are going to have this issue. Raising the tax rates without fixing the tax code so that everyone pays something is a waste of time.
Stop spending so much money, when you can actually bring spending down to a balanced budget then we can talk about raising taxes and adding programs.
April 18, 2012 at 7:57 pm #755539
TanDLParticipant” I won’t dwell on it because I know she can’t help herself, but let’s not pretend here.”
To whom are you referring, sir?
April 18, 2012 at 8:56 pm #755540
DBPMemberAs an editor, wouldn’t a more objective title leave out “the wealthy” which is subjective, and also “Bush tax cuts” which is inaccurate since they were also extedned by Obama.
Oh, absolutely, JV. Absolutely! “Wealthy” is a relative term. For example, you might be wealthy compared to me, while I myself am wealthy, compared to . . .
compared to . . .
A bug.
But in speech — especially persuasive speech — there comes a point at which you must sacrifice objectivity for impact. As long as you and your audience both accept that terms like “wealthy,” and “fair” are subjective and open to interpretation — and as long as you keep a certain humility about you as you make your arguments — then you are permitted to use words like these.
Beyond that, I want you to reflect on what a goodly distance Mistress JoB hath come, from the rhetorical killing fields of the War on Women to the serene, almost scholarly pastures of “Bush Tax Cuts.”
Can’t you see how far she’s travelled . . . just to have a little parley with voo?
Perhps you’re looking at the map from too far away.
Or too close.
April 19, 2012 at 3:05 am #755541
kootchmanMemberIf you are so fortunate to have capital gains… (and btw… that dude in the White House paid less in income taxes as a percentage of his income than I did… and Jacob Marley is more charitable than Joe Biden…..) Most of capital gains comes from income invested AFTER it was already taxed. There are two reasons capital gains are taxed thusly. The first, and what Obama can’t seem to grasp, is capital gains is money invested in the private sector. The place where the jobs are…. the reason for the low rate is to keep the market from radical gyrations… investors are more likely to invest over a longer term, That affects ALL of you. Money goes where it gets the best return. A stable market is how your 401K plans increase in value… over time it is what funds your retirement.. it is the bedrock of pension plans. It keeps money in the market. Ya think it is bad now? If the Buffett plan made it through… the sell off to take the gains at 15% instead of 30%…. would tank your 401K values in ways you wound never imagine. If your income is capital gains… you paid taxes one already on your earned income… what was left, was invested. It’s a double taxing. They are indeed the Obama tax cuts, just as Afghanistan in his war… and he actually expanded the Bush tax cuts…
April 19, 2012 at 3:08 am #755542
kootchmanMemberThis is Obama Day…. he managed to spend more in 3 1/2 years than Dubya did in 8 years… we passed the 5.4 Trillion mark today. 1/3 of the total deficit is on his watch… now, if his claim is.. he created 4 million jobs… then why are federal revenues actually lower this year than in 2010?
April 19, 2012 at 4:19 am #755543
JoBParticipantWhoa Nelly..
is there anything at all that a democrat could say that would not be considered prejudicial?
I used the name for the tax cuts that was given to them by the Republican party when they were passed.
so .. if a republican calls the tax cuts the Bush tax cuts they are giving credit where credit is due?
but if a democrat uses the same term for the same tax cuts they are using prejudicial language…
those tax cuts now belong to Obama!
Say what??????
why oh why did i think that JV actually meant to discuss the issues?
I will admit i am a very prejudiced person
I think a substantiated argument is one that presents a hypothesis and then goes on to present substantiating facts…
I’m sorry JV…
but whether ending the Bush tax cuts would or would not eliminate the national debt is not pertinent to the question of whether those tax cuts were beneficial to the American public and should remain in force.
kootch…
lions and tigers and bears oh my
lions and tigers and bears oh my
your 401K will crumble to dust if capital gains are taxed?
have you actually looked at what the speculators market has done to your 401K?
what about that little bad boy bounce through the mortgage market?
So now our poor little 401Ks should be held hostage to the desire of fat cats not to be taxed on the money they earned earning money?
kootch.. you are aware that all venture capital except that created by capital gains has already been taxed before it is invested in any business venture?
of course.. that small fact renders your argument moot…
but i wouldn’t let that worry you.
lions and tigers and bears
OH MY
April 19, 2012 at 4:21 am #755544
JoBParticipantkootch…
this Obama guy you speak of must be really really powerful.
why would you want to deprive us of such an all powerful wizard who can move markets and create and destroy businesses and ..
oh i forget what else…
sigh……..
April 19, 2012 at 4:24 am #755545
JanSParticipantand then there’s that Afghanistan thing. The little conflict started when exactly? ummm…2001? ummm…and who was president then? Yet…Obama owns it? SERIOUSLY? What an assinine statement. And…if Sir Willard, by some small chance, becomes the next prez, will it then be his? Will he adhere to the timeline of withdrawing in 2014? Or will he do the Repub thing and just leave us there, because , as we all know, war is so damned good for the economy…
again, I just shake my head and say under my breath “WTF”?
April 19, 2012 at 3:47 pm #755546
JVMemberJoB, for the titles, it’s not that hard. If we are talking about immigration, call it Left/Right – Immigration. Again it creates a topic for discussion. An example of a bad title would be: Left/Right – Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.
Either you see the difference or you don’t. I don’t know what else to tell you.
April 19, 2012 at 3:57 pm #755547
JVMemberIn reading JoB’s first article, I don’t think that author has an issue not paying enough taxes. Obviously the rich shoulder the vast majority of the taxes. I think the author’s issue is with income disparity, which as DBP said, will always exist in a free society. (we all know there is a way to fix that though!)
Hopefully we can agree that closing the loopholes would make for a more fair tax code. I don’t want any politicians choosing winners or losers.
I hope you all read the article I linked because it blows a hole in the idea that more taxes will solve anything.
April 19, 2012 at 5:06 pm #755548
skeeterParticipantHi JoB – Although we hold different views on matters, I’ve come to respect your contributions to this forum. I didn’t find the linked article to be very insightful, though.
This statement: “Any one of these five reasons should reinforce the belief that the rich should be paying a LOT more in taxes.”
I just don’t get it. Does this article define who is “rich?” Are they talking about me? My family has two cars and a 401k account with a healthy balance.
The whole tone of the article bothers me. My interpretation of the article is this: “The rich are getting richer. Lets punish them with higher taxes.”
Income taxes are paid almost entirely by the top 10%. The top 10% pay 70% of the income taxes. Would increasing that so that the top 10% pay 80% or 90% or even 100% really help? I’m not convinced.
I would prefer to keep our nation’s focus on creating opportunity for poor people and strengthening/growing the middle class. Increasing taxes on the rich (who already pay the majority of income tax) will not do this.
April 19, 2012 at 6:37 pm #755549
kootchmanMemberJan… I don’t know what branch of the military you were in.. or what ya did.. but in the Oval Office is the Commander in Chief… he can bring in his generals, state department and say… “get em out”… see how Nixon did that in Nam”? If you were not sleeping in boot camp… when they reviewed the chain of command… it became his war the day he was inaugerated… to expand (which he did) to scale back, or to stop. Gitmo is his… to close or keep open. That’s the way it works. If you leave a man for abusing you, and the second does the same thing… it’s not the first mans fault the second one is doing it too.. now is it? It may have started in 2001… but it could have ended one bright January day in 2009. That would make it Obama’s war… in fact he has spend far more in Afghanistan than Bush. And you wonder why he is called the Messiah?…. yes, if Romney continues the war… it’s his baby. As soon as he takes office and Hope and Change returns to Chicago.
April 19, 2012 at 6:42 pm #755550
kootchmanMemberJoB
Yes he is.. no question about it
this Obama guy you speak of must be really really powerful.
But he ain’t superman using his superpowers for good… more of a bumbling Lex Luther.
Help is coming though…
April 19, 2012 at 6:44 pm #755551
JanSParticipantKootchman…it was army. And why do you think that you have to explain things that I know, like I’m some kind of idiot. Get over yourself.
So, in January, if by some slim chance Romney wins, it will be his war? Bullsh*t !He is stopping it..withdrawal in 2014, unless some other president decides that war is a good thing…and I do believe Romney is leaning that way. Good luck with that.
You and I just don’t see eye to eye on many things. That doesn’t make you always right, superior in any way. I don’t get it? YOU don’t get it…you have blinders on…
I love how you decide that when a new prez takes office, anything on the last one’s slate is wiped clean..except for…hmm…Clinton?
April 19, 2012 at 6:48 pm #755552
kootchmanMemberThe fundamental difference… is we have given too much ground to the entitled and not the opportunity to the aspiring. They don’t even recognize the transfer of wealth has been to government… not the top 10%….. those young kids who we burden with our debt .. that is who we are stealing opportunity from. It’s shameful.
April 19, 2012 at 6:50 pm #755553
kootchmanMemberbecause you post things like this
“and then there’s that Afghanistan thing. The little conflict started when exactly? ummm…2001? ummm…and who was president then? “
Ummm who is president now? I don’t know what you know.. but yu should know it is his to stop… and he didn’t did he?
April 19, 2012 at 6:54 pm #755554
kootchmanMemberWell. again since I DO know how government works.. NAFTA, China Free Trade, Repeal of Glass Steagall… endure because 1, they were acts of congress signed into law by Clinton, 2, they were treaties also approved by congress… the current and future presidents are bound by them. Unless… he goes to congress and asks for their repeal… or congress acts, and repeals them … but in the end…at the desk, surrounded by bobble heads, his pen made it law. He could have vetoed them… but he was a vocal supporter… basic civics. His pen, his legislation on legislation approved by congress… BUT….. as CIC..in an undeclared war…. POOF!… it can be over tomorrow morning.
April 19, 2012 at 7:55 pm #755555
JanSParticipantlook..he didn’t stop it on YOUR schedule…but he is stopping it (it’s easy to be an armchair quarterback, isn’t it. Ya know more, ya do more, ya have more qualifications to be prez than the prez…what a wonderful life that is)….again, unless someone else becomes president, and decides that the timeline is too soon. I will not get personal. Thinking one knows more than anyone else, is superior to anyone else on any forum is troll like. I suppose I should defer to you on the care of my kidney disease, too…oh? You don’t have medical knowledge? are you sure?
For the record..we should never have gone to Afghanistan in the first place, and whose fault was that?
April 19, 2012 at 8:20 pm #755556
JVMemberJan, that’s great and all, but the topic is taxes.
Kootch, stop distracting her and let her focus on some sort of creative answer on tax policy.
Maybe their plan can work if we tax the rich 200%!!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.