Record Deficits: Tax the Rich!

reply to post by Sestias

Many economists estimate that tax cuts replace about 40% of the revenues lost. The Reagan administration may have recouped, say, 45% (more than expected) but that still wouldn't pay for them.

You misunderstand me. Under the Reagan tax cuts, the total sum of money collected was higher than what was expected if those cuts had not been in place. More money, not just a smaller decrease than expected.

The Reagan and Bush, Jr. tax cuts were/are paid for with borrowed money. It's not just the stimulus package that put the country into debt.

What put the country into debt was the gross overspending of our elected (quasi-)representatives. I think this is our main disagreement. I see too much money going out; you see not enough coming in. Either will balance the budget, but severe tax increases on the 'rich' (those who buy the most goods and therefore provide jobs for those who manufacture them) will only hurt the economy. It will also do nothing to stop the falling dollar. Cutting spending will have a positive effect on the dollar's value, and can not cause distress on the wealthy class. Now, should we cut spending and more income is still needed for worthwhile expenses, I might go along with a tax increase on the upper 1%. I simply see no reason to pump in more life-blood without first stopping the hemorrhaging.

Right now the middle class is shouldering a higher tax rate than either of the other two. Obama's plan would relieve the middle class somewhat and raise taxes on the upper 1% of the income distribution. That could be called a "bottom up" or at least a "middle up" plan. None of that would require the U.S. to borrow more money.

Untrue. I have already posted a source which shows the percentage of taxes paid is pretty close to in line with the percentage of income made.

Without quoting, I understand being paid in stock options, which is a possibility for several companies. I have worked for some of them, and never for more than $50K/yr. This is not the exclusive realm of the wealthy.

Neither is the IRA/401K. Most companies have some kind of retirement account available for those who wish to take advantage of it, and IRAs are available to anyone.

A strong, healthy and growing middle class is what is needed.

I agree completely with this. However, I do not see how a class can be made strong by regular infusions of unearned income or breaks from paying their fair share. That would seem to be a hindrance to strength, since it is nothing more than a crutch.

I do suggest help of some kind, though. How about allowing smaller companies (started by those middle-class) some sort of relief from the grievous and sometimes asinine regulations that all that tax money is paying to enforce upon them? That will strengthen the middle class by allowing them to gain wealth, the poor by giving them jobs in these small businesses, and will make the wealthy have to try harder to compete (making them more innovative and stronger as well). Plus, society will gain from more choices and more and better products. Government will make more money because more income is being made (and taxed). Sounds like a win-win to me.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

Your plan for easing some burdens on small businesses sounds like a good one.

As far as cutting spending, there's a lot of pork as we all know and that certainly can be cut. Then of course there's the war, that's costing 12B a month. What many people usually mean by cutting spending is ending programs for the poor. In reality, more of the budget goes to the so-called "middle-class entitlements"--social security, medicare, social security disability, veterans' benefits, etc.--than goes to the bottom of the income scale. I'm not sure people would be in such a hurry to cut those.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Yup gross overspending. Here is the problem though...it wont change. The conservative party is dead. Wiped out. We have quasi fascists in office for Republicans and we have Democrats doing what they always do and have really never denied it. Its comical how Republicans try to come of as conservative when they are just as bad if not worse than the Democrats. The only difference is the Dems are going to make you pay for the high speding up front where as the Republicans will put it on the charge card. I almost have given up on government having balanced budgets. I truly dont ever think we will have one. So we have to tax. It sucks especially for a guy like me who wants the 16th Amendment abolished but what other choices do we have if the government wont quit spending?

reply to post by Sestias

Your plan for easing some burdens on small businesses sounds like a good one.

One of the dangers of pure capitalism is the possibility that a company can become large enough to control or even monopolize an entire industry. When that happens, it is necessary for the good of all that someone step in and say 'enough'. I believe in capitalism; I just also understand that it has pitfalls as well. A progressive tax/regulation burden would help to prevent this type of problem from occurring, without harming those who have already achieved their American Dream.

As far as cutting spending, there's a lot of pork as we all know and that certainly can be cut. Then of course there's the war, that's costing 12B a month. What many people usually mean by cutting spending is ending programs for the poor. In reality, more of the budget goes to the so-called "middle-class entitlements"--social security, medicare, social security disability, veterans' benefits, etc.--than goes to the bottom of the income scale. I'm not sure people would be in such a hurry to cut those.

Ah, several issues. The war (IMHO) was necessary, but it also was badly mismanaged. Never should the military be used as a police force; that is not their job nor their area of expertise. The military exists in order to kill people and break things, not to help people and repair things. II am not against the war; I simply want to win it and get the hades out.

As for SS, it should never be a greater tax burden than the extent of the payroll tax. Unfortunately, even though it has drawn in a surplus since its inception, every dime of that surplus has been used to fund assorted pork by the Congress. All that is left now is a bunch of worthless paper, because if they tried to call in these IOUs, the taxes on everyone would be so heinous it would immediately cripple the US economy. Think about a 90+% tax rate for everyone; that's about what it would take now to repay the SS IOUs. Don't depend on SS ever coming in to you, unless you are very very close to retirement right now, and even then, don't count on it.

As for the rest, like medicaid, I actually think they do good for our society, but with spending so out of control and the dollar dropping like a rock, coupled with spiralling fuel costs and the possibility of rising taxes, and taking into account the enormous amount of governmental regulation/intrusion into every single industry, its a safe bet: OUR ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE AGAIN.

No economy = no more social aid programs. Period.

reply to post by mybigunit

Truer words have rarely been spoken. I have no idea who I will vote for this year. I am so tired of the 'lesser of two evils'. The lesser is still evil.

TheRedneck


[edit on 5-8-2008 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by pooty


I agree with you all the way, and that's why I gave you a star...Of course we need to pull back, and cut the millitary budget (over 650 billion per year right now!!!! while leading experts say that we could get by with under 100 billion) in massive amounts. Then we put back at least half of the 22 trillion dollars in tax cuts since 1977 that have been granted to the upper 1% ... let's say that again for the American Idol, ball game watching, daily cheep beer drinking, video game playing, drunk on western entertainment average joes...the upper 1%!!!!!

If we were to cut the military budget in half and increase by at least 50% the taxes in the upper 1% (actually we aughta do more) we could more than have enough to provide health care coverage for everyone (whereby the 50 million Americans without coverage could have some, and the other 100 million or so seriously undercovered could have what is needed...whereby you don't fall down end up in the hospital and lose everything you worked for in your entire life...yes folks this is happening to lots and lots of people in America, and you aught to be ticked off 8 ways to sunday about it!!! ) as well as boost education quality, and fix our infrastructure (health care is infrastructure too...most countries recognise this, except the USA for some damned reason...hint hint: can you say insurance companies and medical establishment?).

We blow so much money on military it isn't even funny. Then there is the private penal system, but that's another thread I suppose.

Come on people, wake the hell up, realise the lies we are told daily, and dump these dumb arses! If "we the people" actually got off our duffs and turned off our tee vees once and for all, and said we aren't going to continue to be led around by a hot poker by you corporate fasciest republicrats anymore, we might actually get something done.

Originally posted by vor78
It always makes people feel better to punish the rich, but ultimately, its counterproductive. Economics is a lot like physics. For every action, there is an equal, but opposite reaction. If you raise taxes on the rich, thereby cutting into their profits, they will seek methods of recouping those profits. How will they do it? They'll either raise prices on the products they sell you or they'll reduce employment and expect fewer employees to do the same amount of work.

In the end, it'll just make matters worse.

the problem with the above statement is that YOU believe those are the "only" 2 options available to the rich, in regards to having their taxes increased. and no...economics is not correlated to physics, when the people who are not wealthy are pushed into an economic corner, they simply kill off the wealthy and their families. history has proven that time and time again.

the wealthy people do not "provide" jobs...they simply hire the least amount of people for the least amount of pay, for the jobs they themselves cannot do, to achieve the maximum amount of personal profit. they are by no means benevolant, they are self-serving. capitalism uncontrolled is as bad as socialism uncontrolled.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by jimmyx]