Thread: Tax the Rich

Originally Posted by Wullie

My thinking on this mess is that it is the fault of BOTH parties. I think they fuss and fight and fight and finger point all day long, then get drunk at night and laugh about how great the show was that they just put on. Theater for the masses in other words. The dems are "for" the poor and down trodden whilst the repubs are "for" the worker and the producer and the WHOLE time they are for nothing other than themselves.

WE as nation have allowed this happen. I feel the majority of the people in the US know more about Dancing With the Stars than they do about their government and its goings on.

NOTHING will change as long as that mentality prevails other than more erosion of our rights so Uncle Sugar can take "care" of us.

It'll be an expensive and demeaning ride to the bottom.

Dang Wullie... I think a tear just ran down my face .

I agree 100%. And thanks for doing your part even if your boss is a tool!

Wullie, I'd like to buy you a real beer!

Okay, I admit I'm only 30 and haven't been around as long as a lot of you guys here, however, I have worked full and part time since I was 14, so I have had enough pay checks and paid taxes enough to see the effect of past and current tax systems. No it will not decrease the deficit; stopping the outrageous spending is what's going to do that. It won't matter how much money is coming in if it and more are going right back out the door. I do believe that it will help to stimulate economic spending in wage classes that have seen sharp declines other than around the holiday seasons. The "rich" are rich for a reason, they have disposable income most of Americans (the poor, and middle class) don't. However, they tend to invest and hold on to that income w/ the current tax loopholes, so they don't spend it; it earns interest and stock shares that go up earn them more money, the cycle continues. Poor and middle class, or anyone living paycheck to paycheck don't have enough "disposable" income to buy and invest, hence the hold on to what monies they can (be it little), but they have what they have. Personally, my annual gross income puts me just above the lower middle class line, but what I actually net leaves me below the poverty line, but I'm still taxed as lower middle class; doesn't seem too fair to me to be taxed in a class that uses my income that is before I'm taxed to begin with (it's a double whammy). Closing the loop holes will not "cure" the problem, however, it will lessen the burden on the middle classes, that are really carrying this country tax wise. Freeing up income in these classes will help to stimulate spending, investing, and other economic growth in a class that has seen a dead stall out in income for the last 30 years. Just my opinion folks, take it for what it is.

It's not that I think people on welfare necessarily deserve what they get, but this link might provide a little perspective on all the debates that rage on about the lazy sob's destroying America.

Welfare Statistics: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Than..

One interesting note at the bottom of the story is how much we subsidize farmers...

Excerpt:

The Big Picture

So now let’s look at the big picture. The final totals are $59 billion, 3 percent of the total federal budget, for regular welfare and $92 billion, 5 percent of the total federal budget, for corporations. So, the government spends roughly 50% more on corporate welfare than it does on these particular public assistance programs.

Should we spend less on corporate welfare and/or social welfare programs? Or should we spend even more? It’s up to you. A bunch of people died horrible deaths to make sure this country remained a democracy, so if you feel strongly about this issue you owe it to them to call or write your congressman and senators and give them a piece of your mind.

I think the only answer is to have the CIA secretly poison the richest men in the country who have all signed that "giving pledge" which states that they'll donate something like 50% of their wealth upon their death. Or, just kill them and steal their money - for the greater good!

David,

I can only take exception to one thing you've posted. That being that this country was NEVER designed as a democracy. It was designed and founded as democratic republic.

I'll quote wiki;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[67] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[68]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a Constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[69] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[70]

(emphasis added by me)

It would appear that we are in the process of losing our grip if we haven't already lost it.

Most western countries are in a similar condition to the US, more or less. Most have ballooning deficits. The cure is simple, spend less and increase your tax revenue. That is the same for the individual who is in debt. The hard part is to figure out where to cut that will do the least harm and where to increase the tax revenue where it will do the least harm. Or you could just keep on going wasting time arguing cutting spending vs increasing taxes instead of just getting on with the grunt of actually paying down our collective deficits. Anyone ever look at the debt clocks and see how fast we are getting deeper, by the minute, into deficit while there is a stalemate?

Bob

I heard some specifics on how far apart the Dems and Reps are.

The Reps have proposed 800 Billion in new "unspecified" revenues with no tax increases.

Obama has proposed 1.6 Trillion in new taxes and 50 Billion in new spending.

NOBODY has mentioned cutting spending.

God help us.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

I heard some specifics on how far apart the Dems and Reps are.

The Reps have proposed 800 Billion in new "unspecified" revenues with no tax increases.

Obama has proposed 1.6 Trillion in new taxes and 50 Billion in new spending.

NOBODY has mentioned cutting spending.

God help us.

Facing facts on fiscal cliff | Factcheck

Exert:

"The automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect would cut $1.2 trillion over 10 years, split roughly in half between domestic and military spending."

Umm David

1 yer link aint working
2 those are the automatic cuts
3 Obama already stuffed in more stimulas then what we can possibly save

Re-check what Geithner said Sunday...


4 There is really no sense in even dicussing it we all know what the final solution will be