Take from the rich...

[tim huntzinger]

Last night on Kudlow, Robert Reich was on and he asked the konservative what was going to happen when the Alternate Minimum Tax expires, and there is a TRILLION hole in the budget and the only thing the konservative could come up with was 'we will grow our way out of it'!

I have zero sympathy for Okies making like six or seven times the average income getting taxed a little bit more.  Buuuuuut I have no explanation why we would want to hurt the budget by granting rebates to the lowest class except Democant class envy.

And when I want someone on the public dole to comment on the fairness of taking taxes for redistribution I will drive without my seatbelt and ask 'em. []

[Conan71]

CF-

I guess there is a brain block for some people who don't get the idea that people's money making money for them usually is the result of direct or indirect investment in business and industry which provides good paying jobs for others throughout the economy.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex


How dare you compare this proposal to Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot???

Take a Xanax Ruf, they tell me it's a miracle drug.

[tim huntzinger]

There is a brain block OK, like how we are supposed to reduce the deficit and pay off the debt?  And what about all that fear-based class-warfare about the effects of minimum wage and Clinton's 'tax raises'?  If certain wingnuts had their way, we would have no public schools, no public universities, no immunizations, no common road system, no disability benefits, nothing but the skin on your back and the mercy of an aristocracy.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Originally posted by cannon_fodder
How dare you compare this proposal to Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot???

"Mob rule" would take more than 4%, I bet...

It's very telling that a 4% higher tax on those who CAN afford it would raise incredibly huge sums of money... would very likely take us from huge fake-deficits to another Clinton era surplus.... acting like the rich have "earned" their money is pure folly...

The NY Times in 2005 reported that... "Other data shows that among major world economies, the United States in recent years has the third-greatest disparity in incomes between the very top and everyone else. Only Mexico and Russia, among major economies, have greater disparity."

So, why would the United States want to be MORE like Mexico and Russia... tell me this, capitalist...

And can you please share the percentage of people who earn over $200,000 per year who have family in the military who are fighting and dying for this country?  

Why should someone's money make more money than I do?  Is their money that much more hard working than I am?  You can make excuses in the traditions of run-of-the-mill economists...  

If you make over $200,000 per year, it's not about money anymore.  It's about control.  It's about power.  It's about prestige...

If you didn't notice, we're at war... why make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent???  Stupidity and incompetence should never be rewarded...

Spoken like a typical "have not". Well, some of the "haves" out there worked damn hard to get where they are in life and do not believe that they should be punished for their success by higher tax.

As for your BS military service comment, this "have" has served. Do I get a waiver of the 4% tax then?  

If you do not like your lot in life, do better. That's what this country is supposed to be about.

[tim huntzinger]

It is difficult to defend tax hikes, but the fact is we are trillions in debt with no end in sight.  We need to have a balanced budget amendment, a flat tax retail or otherwise, and to reduce spending.  Without any of those what alternative is there?  The river tax vote shows that those doing well think they can afford to pay more so what is the problem?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

There is a brain block OK, like how we are supposed to reduce the deficit and pay off the debt?  And what about all that fear-based class-warfare about the effects of minimum wage and Clinton's 'tax raises'?  If certain wingnuts had their way, we would have no public schools, no public universities, no immunizations, no common road system, no disability benefits, nothing but the skin on your back and the mercy of an aristocracy.

Tim, here's the point:

This is not raising taxes.  This is shifting the collection point from lower income to higher income, if I'm reading this correctly.  In fact, there's even the probability that by further raising the income bar on who does not have to pay in, it might decrease overall revenue.

If it balances, it will not raise over-all revenues, just shift the collection point.  Just like building more retail density in another part of a city, without an increase in personal incomes nor more influx of outside dollars, it's just a collection point shift.  Doesn't do jack for the deficit.

This tax increase would not affect me, so why would I care?  The reason I care is I'm sick and tired of the government telling me they need to spend more and more money.  Government keeps expanding their payroll and offering fewer essential services at every level and trying to get involved in services they have no business being in.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

and give to everyone else.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20071024%5cACQDJON200710242253DOWJONESDJONLINE001107.htm&

The chairmen of Ways and Means committee has proposed essentially revoking income taxes altogether on the bottom half of Americans and paying them more money from the federal government in the EITC.  It will be funded by raising the income tax by 4% on the top 10% of wage earners.

Other details include reduction of business taxes for certain interests and of course tons of other provisions that no citizen nor congressmen will read in full.  But to summarize...

Raise taxes on the upper 10% and give that money to the bottom 50%.  With liberty and justice for all.  No wait, that's mob rule.  They have what we want, lets use the government to take it and then give it to us. Unbelievable.

How dare you compare this proposal to Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot???

"Mob rule" would take more than 4%, I bet...

It's very telling that a 4% higher tax on those who CAN afford it would raise incredibly huge sums of money... would very likely take us from huge fake-deficits to another Clinton era surplus.... acting like the rich have "earned" their money is pure folly...

The NY Times in 2005 reported that... "Other data shows that among major world economies, the United States in recent years has the third-greatest disparity in incomes between the very top and everyone else. Only Mexico and Russia, among major economies, have greater disparity."

So, why would the United States want to be MORE like Mexico and Russia... tell me this, capitalist...

And can you please share the percentage of people who earn over $200,000 per year who have family in the military who are fighting and dying for this country?  

Why should someone's money make more money than I do?  Is their money that much more hard working than I am?  You can make excuses in the traditions of run-of-the-mill economists...  

If you make over $200,000 per year, it's not about money anymore.  It's about control.  It's about power.  It's about prestige...

If you didn't notice, we're at war... why make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent???  Stupidity and incompetence should never be rewarded...

Wow!  That's an interesting viewpoint.  So as I understand you, the wealthy don't deserve their wealth and anyone who makes more than $200,000 a year should just give it to someone else.  Is it the poor or the rich that make this country great?

Here are my general observations on life:

1. I have never been employed by a poor person.  

2. I know lots of rich people and most of them have wonderful success stories built on hard work, creativity, and an unyielding resistance to negative thought.  

3. The tax cuts you mention helped me re-invest and expand my business, employ more people and, I have to admit, buy more things (that it may be worth mentioning, were made by people with jobs).

4. I certainly don't make in excess of $200,000 but I intend to make more than that someday.  I own my own business and as my business grows I employ more people and pay them more money. I reward success and punish failure.

5. If you are hard working and upset about the money you make, then you are in the wrong job. You need to do what you enjoy most in life.  You will do it better than anyone else and therefore be more successful.

6. Every time we cut taxes, both the economy and government revenue go up.  This has never failed to be the case.  It's an easy bit of research.

7. There is no such thing as a tax increase on the rich or a tax cut for the rich!  Because the rich are the people who own the companies and actually create jobs, if you increase taxes they just raise their prices to compensate, therefore your can-o-beans gets more expensive.  When you cut taxes on the rich they either re-invest in their business endeavors or BUY STUFF, creating more jobs and higher income for the people that work at their companies or make their STUFF.  

8. Distribution of wealth (that is what you are talking about) produces nothing because the poor will simply have to pay higher prices for STUFF to compensate for for the increases.  Additionally, you remove incentive for people to be more successful.  Why should I make a better mouse-trap or cancer medicine if it's not going to make any difference in my income and my ability to provide for my family?  Why should I work extra-hard when I can get paid the same to relax?

9. The one thing you got right and I commend you for it, was your use of the term "fake-deficit."  There is no such thing as a deficit as long as the FED can control interest rates and print money!!!!!!  It is an imaginary number used for measurement purposes (and political campaigns) only.


I'm sorry your life hasn't turned out like you planned.

[tim huntzinger]

The driving force is the expiration of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and that the index for computing that ATM is sliding lower into the middle class. Eliminating that causes a trillion dollar deficit.  Repeating myself now, what else can we do?

[bokworker]

Actually Tim I think the AMT is becoming an issue because the "middle class" is now at a level that was perceived as "rich" when enacted....

That reality does not change the fact that as you say, the government has now "counted on" this new tax that has yet to be collected. i am not sure exactly how we got to that point but the idea is that if we change the AMT back to what it was originally intended then there is a future source of revenue that has to be replaced.

Like many others, I would rather see the government become more efficient in doing what it does with resources already available but since that is a pipe dream then we are left with how to feed, in the words of Friendly Bear" the "Mother of All Tax Vampires"... The troubling aspect of the debate for me is that it has devolved into this class warfare argument that only makes sense if you ignore basic economics. This country has an economic system absed on equal opportunity... there is no guarantee of success which means there will always be failures. This in and of itself is not evil by any means and there is no one onthis board that ignores the fact that there are people that we as a society will always need to help. The issue is when people that are able to do better but don't and somehow feel they are entitled to a share of the success that those that work hard have. A government that begins a "redistribution" of its' countries wealth is not a democratic government but a socialistic or commmunistic government. For those that espouse this is the way to go then I would offer that there are countires like that in the world today and nobody here is going to stop you from going there.

Tim, there is no doubt that we as a country are not in a pristine fiscal position... but get past the sheer size of the numbers and there have been many times in our short history where the amount of debt, as a percentage of GDP, income or net worth, has been higher than it is today. Certainly the trend cannot continue but we are not on the precipice of financial ruin... not by a long shot.

[MichaelC]

That's not entirely true.  The preamble to our constitution clearly mentions that part of the duty of the gov't is to "promote the general welfare".  Whatever that means.

We're not talking about redistribution of wealth in the Marxist sense, and we're not talking about tax rates that are unheard of.  The top tax rates would have to be hiked 2 to 3 times to get to historic highs.  The system has been dismantled over the last few decades, it hardly resembles the old Progressive system.

And our system is far less reliant on some vague definition of "economic freedom", than it is flow of capital.  Those that espouse lower tax rates on wealthy people, are general the "Trickle-Down" types.  That theory is questionable at best, but it is for certain that if capital is fused into the low end of the economy, that it most definitely trickles up.

When that flow stops, so does the economy.  So far, all we're doing to keep money flowing, is inflating the currency.  That's completely unsustainable.

[RecycleMichael]

"Trickle Down" economics really mean "Tinkle On".

[tim huntzinger]

Nahhhh, easier to call war-hero Rangel a Marxist than to fix spending or raise taxes on the wealthiest.  More evidence why a flat tax, fair tax, national retail tax, are all better than what we have now.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

"Trickle Down" economics really mean "Tinkle On".

Building set-backs in my neighborhood make it difficult for me to "Tinkle On" the peasants as they walk by. And. . .too many carry umbrellas!

[Conan71]

Flat tax sucks.  National retail tax is where it's at.