Stagflation Nation

[guido911]

If those people most affected by tax increases thought there was something good to come from it, they would be on board.  Instead it becomes a transparent attempt at wealth redistribution, or the government trying to get more money into play by confiscating it.

I agree to the extent that by bungling the Joe the Plumber question (spread the wealth around), Obama left zero impression as to what his intentions were. I view all his tax policy notions with that in mind. That, coupled with the Nate's of the world that apparently believe the rich are somehow getting over, or that they are not paying their "fair share. And isn't it funny that their "fair share" is always a lot more than they are paying now, rather what they are currently paying, and that how the middle/lower classes are paying at least or more than their "fair share". Who thinks like this?

[RecycleMichael]

Before we start talking about raising taxes, why can't we start by first making EVERYONE pay at least some taxes. We all know that nearly 1/2 of us pay NO federal income tax.

You must hate the poor. Did one of them scare you when you were a young rich boy?

[nathanm]

A third of us are either minors or retirees, Guido. And I didn't say anything about fair share. If the government needs money (I don't think it needs more right now, but you do, so I'm using your frame of reference), it makes the most sense to go where the money is. As I've said before, you could take 100% of everything the bottom half of income earners earn and not even cover the deficit.

[guido911]

Did one of them scare you when you were a young rich boy?

Yes.

Seriously, you have to know I started out with NOTHING. My wife with a little less than NOTHING. The both of us are completely self-made, working at the minimum wage while attending college and doing the National Guard thing--for years. It's called sacrifice, and NO, we weren't lucky or otherwise fortunate. Quite frankly, and I could be wrong, but there is a chance that a significant number of people in here had it better than I did.

And stop with the I "hate the poor" crap. You know damned well I give quite generously to very decent charities to help these people. IIRC, you and I even discussed writing checks to one common food bank charity. I don't like the idea of government telling me which charity of its choosing that I am going to involuntarily support.

[guido911]

A third of us are either minors or retirees, Guido.

How many of those (directly or indirectly as is the case of minors) are in the "paying federal income taxes" category? But answer the question, why shouldn't all of us at least pay SOMETHING, rather than just focusing on one tax policy solution?

[nathanm]

How many of those (directly or indirectly as is the case of minors) are in the "paying federal income taxes" category? But answer the question, why shouldn't all of us at least pay SOMETHING, rather than just focusing on one tax policy solution?

Because at least 15% of income earning families are living below the poverty line. They don't need their situation made worse just to make you feel better, especially when it will do essentially nothing for the budget deficit.

[Teatownclown]

As far as an implosion?  Your guess is as good as mine.  I'm guessing as soon as our debt rating starts to sink.  What's your guess?

When does the debt rating sink due to obstinate repukes being uncooperative driving down confidence? My guess? The country is not broke. If we were, the world would be upside down. Is that your desire?

[Cats Cats Cats]

Yes.

Seriously, you have to know I started out with NOTHING. My wife with a little less than NOTHING. The both of us are completely self-made, working at the minimum wage while attending college and doing the National Guard thing--for years. It's called sacrifice, and NO, we weren't lucky or otherwise fortunate. Quite frankly, and I could be wrong, but there is a chance that a significant number of people in here had it better than I did.

And stop with the I "hate the poor" crap. You know damned well I give quite generously to very decent charities to help these people. IIRC, you and I even discussed writing checks to one common food bank charity. I don't like the idea of government telling me which charity of its choosing that I am going to involuntarily support.

Well any suggestion on increasing taxes you hate the rich.  So if you want anybody below that to pay a larger amount you therefore would hate that group.  Following your logic.  Just because you were/are something doesn't mean you don't hate it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hatred

[guido911]

Because at least 15% of income earning families are living below the poverty line. They don't need their situation made worse just to make you feel better, especially when it will do essentially nothing for the budget deficit.

It's not about what makes me "feel better", I thought this was a discussion about tax policy. If you live in this country, and partake of the entitlements of being here, you should have to pay something. And the fact that it would not raise the sort of capital you find significant exhibits the same sort of "It's just a billion dollars" mentality nonsense I cannot stand.

[nathanm]

It's not about what makes me "feel better", I thought this was a discussion about tax policy. If you live in this country, and partake of the entitlements of being here, you should have to pay something. And the fact that it would not raise the sort of capital you find significant exhibits the same sort of "It's just a billion dollars" mentality nonsense I cannot stand.

Interestingly, I find it nonsensical that you insist on yammering on about tiny fractions of our 2,000 billion dollar budget. If you actually want to balance it, you have to look at where the big money is being spent.

And yes, your insistence that people who already don't have enough money to support themselves pay some of their not enough to the government is a pretty strong indication it's about salving your conservative ideology more than anything else. If you really wanted to balance the budget, you'd be interested in figuring out how to get health care costs down (hint: spending on private insurance has increased faster than medicare spending over the past 40 years) and reduce the size of our military.

[guido911]

Well any suggestion on increasing taxes you hate the rich.  So if you want anybody below that to pay a larger amount you therefore would hate that group.  Following your logic.  Just because you were/are something doesn't mean you don't hate it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hatred

Help me with this? If I led you to believe that I "hate" a group of people because of their financial situation, than I apologize. The point I was trying to make is that if we are going to talk about federal tax policy and people paying their "fair share", than that should mean everyone--including a massive portion of our population that pays NO share. That's it. Why is this such a big deal?

And by the way, I don't think Nate hates rich people because he wants to pop the rich only.

[Teatownclown]

 Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell stated, his number one goal is to ensure that Obama is a "one term president". Instead of focusing on job creation that would benefit the country, the GOP has changed the subject to the debt and the deficit seemingly unaware, or maybe perfectly aware, that jobs will improve both the deficit and the debt situation. So thanks GOP! Thanks for NO JOBS, NO MEDICARE, NO SOCIAL SECURITY and NO HOPE! Just remember, karma has a way off biting one in the a$$ and yours, Conan  and Guido, are plenty big enough for a big bite!

[guido911]

Interestingly, I find it nonsensical that you insist on yammering on about tiny fractions of our 2,000 billion dollar budget. If you actually want to balance it, you have to look at where the big money is being spent.

And yes, your insistence that people who already don't have enough money to support themselves pay some of their not enough to the government is a pretty strong indication it's about salving your conservative ideology more than anything else. If you really wanted to balance the budget, you'd be interested in figuring out how to get health care costs down (hint: spending on private insurance has increased faster than medicare spending over the past 40 years) and reduce the size of our military.

Fine. Cut spending. Again, I thought this was a debate about tax policy and in typical Nate fashion you change the subject to something else--military spending and health care reform. I believe I heard there are 300 million people living in this country. Think about how each family of four that are paying nothing starts kicking in $10.00 a month ($2.50/week or less than 1/2 price of a pack of cigarettes). That's a significant amount, from such a low damned contribution so they can live in this great country.

[nathanm]

I believe the topic of discussion was 'stagflation nation.' Either way, tax policy cannot be separated from spending. The point of taxes is to pay for the spending, after all.

How about this: You can have your $10/month flat tax on the least of us if we can treat all forms of income the same when tax time rolls around. Whether you get it from investment, selling a house, or earning a wage, let's tax it all using the same formula. Income is income is income.

[Red Arrow]

Think about how each family of four that are paying nothing starts kicking in $10.00 a month ($2.50/week or less than 1/2 price of a pack of cigarettes). That's a significant amount...

I was wondering how significant it would be.

300,000,000 people, 1/2 do not pay Federal Income tax (notice lefties that I did not say "pay no tax"). That leaves 150,000,000.  Figure an average of a family of 4.  That leaves 150,000,000/4 = 37,500,000 additional tax paying units.  At $10/mo, that's $120/yr x 37,000,000 = $4,500,000,000.

Only $4.5 Billion.  That's not worth worrying about.  Send it to me and I'll make sure it gets put to good use.