Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

I'm sorry. I started coughing up blood when reading that article. Can someone sum it up for me?

[Heron TSG]

Income does not count the hoarded wealth they have. Mitt Romney 'only' makes 10 million per year, but has a net worth of 270 million. I can guarantee that Warren Buffet does not make 55 billion dollars each year.

[Truean]

I agree that cutting government spending is probably very difficult and many beneficial programs would suffer for it. Unfortunately, at some point the US government just can't collect enough income through taxes to pay for them all. And with a debt of 15 trillion dollars and growing, painful cuts are going to be inevitable.
It's not an optimal outcome, but it's going to have to happen regardless.

Prove, or at least produce evidence that the government can not collect enough taxes to cover current expenses. The problem is that you are making assertions that are all too simplistic and unjustified by the preponderance of evidence. If you want to be taken seriously and convince us that you are correct, you are going to have to back it up with actual numbers and references.

The IRS begs to differ(s). I assure you the IRS can get nearly anything if empowered to do so. Some of their letters prominently and repeatedly feature, "you will comply." Everyone does.

I'm all for a large high income bracket tax increase and I'm also for corporations being taxed as persons through personal income taxation rates. If the corporation is a person enough to have bribe the government "free speech" rights, then you're a person enough for personal income taxation rates. Highest brackets.... They are literally sitting on mountains of cash for no reason.

Worried about the corporation passing the taxes on to the consumer? Simply don't let them. Tax their return on investment profit rather than gross revenue. They won't be able to pass it on.

Rushing to google here, forgive me if my sources aren't rock solid.
From the wall street journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621304576267113524583554.html

"If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security"

That's taking *all* their money, and it still would pay only a tenth of the overall current debt, which is still rising.

Raising taxes may well be a part of the solution, but it's not the entire solution.

O but that doesn't include the corporations.... That's where the real money is hoarded.

People don't understand how inapplicable "personal earnings" are to the wealthy. I set up trusts and corporations for this purpose. The rich don't hold wealth personally. This is why you hear of CEOs working for a salary of "$1." <---- PR scam.

Taxing the rich personally is like raiding the pantry for valuables. Go for the combination lock safe. It's all in the corporations and trusts.

[ChairmanPoo]

At least three separate nobel prizes of economics have spoken against budget cuts.

[GSD]

Hey, if you guys believe that government spending can continue at it's current rate, and the solution to all your problems is to take your money from the wealthy, I don't live in the states, I have no skin in the game, go ahead.
I'm just explaining the reasoning behind those who seek a different alternative.

[Luke_Prowler]

That's income tax, that doesn't even begin to start with the other taxes that people pay
Maybe higher taxes isn't the all solution, but still needs to happen. It's not a binary answer. Cutting budget might help (though I personally believe we've basicly started hitting bone), but it too will not save the economy alone.

[Vector]

I'm just explaining the reasoning behind those who seek a different alternative.

I don't think the problem here is that we don't understand the alternative.

[GSD]

The alternative is making unpopular but neccessary budget cuts, like Governor Walker is doing.

And to Luke_Prowler, I hate to quote myself, but I did say
"Raising taxes may well be a part of the solution, but it's not the entire solution."

[alway]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/focus-0
First off, we should get rid of the effectively negative tax rates on mega-corps.

Among these companies the average effective tax rate between 2008-10 was only 18.5%. While 71 companies paid over 30% of their profits in federal income tax, 30 enjoyed negative tax rates over the whole three year period. Pepco, an electricity company, had the lowest effective tax rate of -57.6%. Wells Fargo, a bank, received the biggest tax subsidy over the three years of almost $18 billion, and was one of 25 companies which took more than half of the total $223 billion subsidy claimed. In at least one of the three years, 78 firms paid no or negative tax rates, and legally-by writing off capital investments before they actually wear out (known as "accelerated depreciation"), making use of tax deductible stock options and industry-specific tax breaks, and offshore tax havens.

[Frumple]

"If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security"

Ngh. I have trouble believing that, honestly, when there's 7 people (Th'wal-mart fellow's inheritors) in the US who have a collective wealth greater than the combined value of the bottom 30% of the population. I also wouldn't be particularly surprised if that's not including the pieces of filth that do crap like get a $1 income but are making millions through other means.

You'd want to be including everyone making over $100k, though. With that, you've got over two trillion in raw income, to say nothing about the other tricks many of them are pulling.

But hell, if that's accurate and the other points brought up while I was typing this not applicable? We're screwed, there's absolutely nothing we can do. Cutting won't save our asses, because if we do vital stuff's going to collapse.

90% of the wealth of America is in the hands of 10% of the population (That was a few years back, actually. It's probably gotten worse by now.). If they can't cover it when the other 90% is already doing their damnedest to, well. Guess what rest of world, ahahahaha!? We're going to take you all with us.

Hey, if you guys believe that government spending can continue at it's current rate, and the solution to all your problems is to take your money from the wealthy, I don't live in the states, I have no skin in the game, go ahead.
I'm just explaining the reasoning behind those who seek a different alternative.

That, honestly, isn't really what a lot of us want to happen. We want the rich to be paying a fair tax, same as everyone else does. They're not. It's beginning to royally infuriate people.

[Truean]

Hey, if you guys believe that government spending can continue at it's current rate, and the solution to all your problems is to take your money from the wealthy, I don't live in the states, I have no skin in the game, go ahead.
I'm just explaining the reasoning behind those who seek a different alternative.

O, we're well aware of the other side. "Take money from the wealthy?" No it's called having a hedge fund manager pay the same tax percentage as anyone else, their fair share, rather than him dodging it all through loopholes and complaining about it.

Speaking entirely for myself. I don't want rich people to "solve my problems." Their "help" just hurts me. They don't solve any problems. They are the problem. I want them out of my way. I'm sick of picking up the pieces for rich arrogant bank managers and CEOs who don't know how to deal with a crisis and have no talents besides appeasing stockholders.

We're not ignorant. We rationally disagree with you. I consciously and with full knowledge disagree with you.

The alternative is making unpopular but neccessary budget cuts, like Governor Walker is doing.

And to Luke_Prowler, I hate to quote myself, but I did say
"Raising taxes may well be a part of the solution, but it's not the entire solution."

It isn't necessary. They've already gutted the budget. Walker wanted to attack police, fire, EMS and teacher salaries. Going after them instead of the people who caused the problem won't fix anything.

[GSD]

Your definition of 'fair' might not be the same as everyone else's.

For example, I might say 'fair' is everyone pays the same % of their income. Some might say 'fair' is everyone paying the same dollar amount. The progressive definition of 'fair' I believe is a progressively increasing % based on dollar value of wealth.

Who's to say which is the correct definition?

Also, I'm completely in favour of closing corporate loopholes, and if I ever sounded like I was implying you were ignorant, I apologize. I've stressed many times that these are differences in our beliefs.

[alway]

Who's to say which is the correct definition?

Economics. Instability, both economic and political, results from massive income disparities. When wealth is over concentrated, economies break down.

[ChairmanPoo]

The problem is that trying to weather the crisis by increasing taxes and decreasing spending makes as much sense as fighting world poverty by churning cash out of the printers and handling every hobo a million dollars. Money only has value as an exchange merchandise. If everyone (starting with the goverment) just sits on their pile of cash without spending it, the economy will stagnate further, there will be less people working, and those piles of cash will be worth less and less. Rooselvet understood this. De Gaulle understood this. The problem is that both of them are dead and the people we are stuck with prefer to manage our collective economies as if they were grannies spending their pension.

This can't be solved by mere spending cuts, the whole economy must be set in motion, and we must get people to work and produce. Otherwise we'll "cut spending" right into a recession.

[GSD]

"This can't be solved by mere spending cuts, the whole economy must be set in motion, and we must get people to work and produce. Otherwise we'll "cut spending" right into a recession."
Again, that's the Keynesian view. And there's a lot of evidence to support that. There's also a lot of evidence to support the Hayekian view.

I'm out for the night. Thank you all again for a lovely conversation.