It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republican Governor learns his tax cuts for the rich didn't work

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: SubTruth

If that was 'true' then why demagogue the rich ?

Why demagogue business ?

Shouldn't the obvious solution be to fix the money ?

Instead of BULLSNIP demagoguery?

The obvious solution is obvious.





We should have a flat tax rate across the board. Fixing the "money" is not going to be easy the federal reserve has tentacles that if pulled out crash the system. The inflation is going to keep rising until we reach the tipping point I believe.



We should be looking at middle out economic planning instead of top to bottom. The average household income is 50,000 and new cars cost 30,000........If this continues it will crash. Also I am not a liberal I am a conservative minded constitution lover. The rich are not the problem it is the system that is the problem. We are not following the constitution and it is having impacts.
edit on 5-1-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: xuenchen

What are you missing? What you provided is not in contradiction to what I provided with links?



It's close.




posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth



I still disagree.

No income tax. Fix the money

Would be the greatest 'stimulus' plan in history.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I actually agree with you........The money is the issue. The federal reserve was put in place to control and destroy the currency and it worked. Leaving the gold standard was one of the last roadblocks to truly destroying it's value.



Still a flat tax is the only fair constitutional way to gain governmental revenue. We are reaching inflationary boundaries that if reached could have huge social impacts. The lower wage earners will not be able to afford food and housing in the near future as prices continue to rise unchecked. Wages are not keeping up with inflation and scales are tipping faster than policy changes.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Greven

NONE of them are self funding.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE government program that pays for itself.

Do you honestly think that pittance people pay in covers the benefits received ?

They don't even come close.

Employees only pay a SMALL percentage the rest of that comes from the employer. That doesn't cover it. So they print more money. That still doesn't cover it. They borrow money from places like CHINA. That still doesn't cover it.

Hell issuing treasuries still doesn't cover it. Then they created BULL SNIP new taxes lik the 'Alternative minimum tax', an the capitol gains surtax.

AND IT STILL DOESN'T COVER the revenue short fall.

Because if they were 'self funding' as someone claims, New taxes would have never been created, and the ENDLESS demagouery wouldn't exist.

FACT remains they don't even come close to paying for themselves.

You sincerely believe this, don't you? That just points to how bad our education system is, I suppose. Social Security is self-funded. It really is. It's a government program, and it only works by paying for itself - you and I as we work contribute to a fund which is drawn down by those on Social Security. It's been in the black for so long that it has been used (some would say pillaged) by the government to pay for other things - because it funds itself and then some. The problem you might have heard about is that there is a projected imbalance - more people will be taking from Social Security than paying into it. Only then will it be in the red. It isn't there yet.

I see you have entirely sidestepped my inquiry as to what you would cut, please do come up with an answer:

By doing away with income taxes and Social Security (etc), we now only have $240 billion in revenue from other taxes. What will that pay for? Let's gut everything - every single thing the federal government does - except the military. What will that cost? Oh, about $700 billion in 2013. Hm, looks like we're a bit short. Suppose we add back the corporate income tax - that gives us around $513 billion or so.

Oh dear... what would you do about such a shortfall?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Social Security being "self funded".....

But how much taxpayer money is needed to pay the bloated bureaucracy costs?

Does it come out of the checks or the general tax fund?




posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

Social Security being "self funded".....

But how much taxpayer money is needed to pay the bloated bureaucracy costs?

Does it come out of the checks or the general tax fund?


Uh, hello? Did you miss my post earlier about Social Security being the largest creditor to the United States of America?

I'll say this quite bluntly: SOCIAL SECURITY BRINGS IN MORE MONEY THAN IT SENDS OUT.

It funds itself and more. The end. Don't you remember the past complaints about politicians raiding Social Security? They didn't do that because it was losing money, now did they?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

DO you know what 'self funded' means ?

People fund the program 100% on their own.

They DO NOT.

A checking account is self funded.

A savings account is SELF FUNDED.

I agree the educational system in this country does suck.

Apparently some don't know what 'SELF" funded means.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I tire of debating accepted terminology.

It's cute that you still ignore my question. Again:

By doing away with income taxes and Social Security (etc), we now only have $240 billion in revenue from other taxes. What will that pay for? Let's gut everything - every single thing the federal government does - except the military. What will that cost? Oh, about $700 billion in 2013. Hm, looks like we're a bit short. Suppose we add back the corporate income tax - that gives us around $513 billion or so.

Oh dear... what would you do about such a shortfall?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Oh my, I suppose I must issue a correction on looking at recent data - looks like Social Security no longer takes in more than it gives out. Seems several years ago was the tipping point. I must admit I hadn't checked the figures since I was in college for my first degree.

Even still, it isn't taking money from taxpayers - it's drawing down on the fund. You might recall how I mentioned that rich folks don't have to pay beyond a percent of ~$100k (someone at that breakpoint pays the same as everyone past it to SSI). Changing that would entirely fix the current situation of the fund being drawn down:

Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.

It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent.

If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.

Presto. Social Security’s long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved.

Apologies - it seems the situation changed and I hadn't noticed.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
We can also take a high altitude view?

As of Dec. 2014, of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rates in the country 7 of them have GOP Governors?

R Mississippi 7.3
D California 7.2
R Georgia 7.2
D Rhode Island 7.1
D Oregon 7.0
R Nevada 6.9
R Arizona 6.8
R Tennessee 6.8
R Michigan 6.7
R South Carolina 6.7

also see here..


Mr. Brownback is not the only Republican governor who is struggling this year because extreme policies have failed. Some of the country’s most damaging governors are caught in tossup races with Democrats, fighting for re-election even while President Obama’s unpopularity has hurt his party’s chances of retaining the Senate.

..

Mr. Corbett, who will probably become the first Pennsylvania governor to be defeated for re-election since 1974, is a good example of how difficult it is to escape blatantly wrongheaded policies.

...

the biggest reason for widespread anger is Mr. Corbett’s decision to cut state education funding by $335 million in 2011, a reduction that hit poor districts particularly hard and from which the schools have never recovered. Even now, as a percentage of public school funding, the state’s contribution ranks 45th in the nation, largely because of big cuts to business taxes, which reduced revenues and forced widespread teacher layoffs and increased class sizes.

...

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who won a 2012 recall election with 53 percent of the vote but has not been able to rise above 50 percent in any recent polls. Mr. Walker’s tax cuts have led to a $1.8 billion budget shortfall through 2017

...

Still, the most prominent example of failed tax-cut economics is Kansas, where a huge decline in revenues has meant cuts in spending on education and transportation. Far from experiencing the “shot of adrenaline” that Mr. Brownback promised, the state’s job growth has trailed the nation.

That is one of the reasons Standard & Poor’s has given Kansas a negative outlook on its finances. And it explains why many voters, in Kansas and elsewhere, are giving a negative outlook to ruinous policies and the politicians behind them.


www.nytimes.com...

It would be a different discussion if reality didn't starkly contradict the policies endorsed here...

But we are seeing FAILED BUDGETS, HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT, DEFICETS and CREDIT DOWNGRADES...In states where Republican Governors have actually implemented these policies in the real world.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   

a reply to: Indigo5

We can also take a high altitude view?

As of Dec. 2014, of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rates in the country 7 of them have GOP Governors?

R Mississippi 7.3
D California 7.2
R Georgia 7.2
D Rhode Island 7.1
D Oregon 7.0
R Nevada 6.9
R Arizona 6.8
R Tennessee 6.8
R Michigan 6.7
R South Carolina 6.7


And in all fairness, what of those percentages are people that live in Democrat voting pockets?

Boying ing ing





posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
How Tea Party tax cuts are turning Kansas into a smoking ruin



Sam Brownback, the Republican governor of Kansas, doesn't just believe in whistling past the graveyard--he's willing to stroll past it in full-throated song. The graveyard is where the economy of Kansas has been buried since 2012, when Brownback and his Republican state legislature enacted a slew of deep tax cuts in a tea party-esque quest for economic "freedom."




"Our new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy," he promised then. Brownback's tax consultant, the supply-side guru Art Laffer, promised Kansans that the cuts would pay for themselves in supercharged economic growth.

Instead, job growth in Kansas trails the nation. The state's rainy-day fund is dwindling to zero. Month after month, revenue comes in even lower than fiscal officials' most dire expectations.


Its called Voodoo economics. Actually a term used by the first Bush to describe the economic ideas of Ronald Reagen.

I call it wishful thinking, scam fantasy economics( to help the rich get richer)



In the rest of the country, school budgets are finally beginning to recover from the toll of the last recession; in Kansas, they're still falling. Healthcare, assistance for the poor, courts, and other state services are being eviscerated. Who's benefiting? The rich, including those proud offspring of Wichita, Kan.: the Koch brothers.
www.latimes.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

a reply to: Willtell

Its called Voodoo economics.


Depends who's doll gets the pins stuck into them.




posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Well then since tax cuts 'dont work' the poor, and middle class' needs to give theirs up.

*crickets'



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I am tired of people that don't know what the hell they are talking about.



The current tax rate for Social Security is 6.2% for the employer and 6.2% for the employee, or 12.4% total. The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total.


Self funded they say

Now how the hell does 6.2% pay for an average benefit average of $1200 a month ?

Oh thats right the difference is made up by the GD employer. Which does not cover it.

Same GD deal with medicare.

Think 1.4 % pays for thousands of dollars of medical expenses multiplied, by 50+ million?

Think that 6.2% pays thousands of dollars per month multiplied by 50+ million ?

Hell NEITHER does.

So they rob from the rich.

They print more money thus devaluing the GD dollar.

They borrow money from foreign countries.

They create new GD taxes like the alternative minimum tax.

And the medicare capitol gains surtax.

I am tired of people IGNORING how GD social programs work.



edit on 5-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Greven

I am tired of people that don't know what the hell they are talking about.



The current tax rate for Social Security is 6.2% for the employer and 6.2% for the employee, or 12.4% total. The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total.


Self funded they say

Now how the hell does 6.2% pay for an average benefit average of $1200 a month ?

Oh thats right the difference is made up by the GD employer. Which does not cover it.

Same GD deal with medicare.

Think 1.4 % pays for thousands of dollars of medical expenses multiplied, by 50+ million?

Think that 6.2% pays thousands of dollars per month multiplied by 50+ million ?

Hell NEITHER does.

So they rob from the rich.

They print more money thus devaluing the GD dollar.

They borrow money from foreign countries.

They create new GD taxes like the alternative minimum tax.

And the medicare capitol gains surtax.

I am tired of people IGNORING how GD social programs work.

Again you ignore my question:

By doing away with income taxes and Social Security (etc), we now only have $240 billion in revenue from other taxes. What will that pay for? Let's gut everything - every single thing the federal government does - except the military. What will that cost? Oh, about $700 billion in 2013. Hm, looks like we're a bit short. Suppose we add back the corporate income tax - that gives us around $513 billion or so.

Oh dear... what would you do about such a shortfall?

Is it a difficult one?

Anyhow, yeah, it's still self funded. The only one debating that seems to be you. The caveat right now is that it is drawing down on accumulated funds from when it was taking in more than it was giving out. Only money that SSI has collected (including accrued interest) in taxes is being paid out by SSI. Therefore, it funds itself. It is self funded. Simple.

As for not knowing what I'm talking about... it seems you didn't read or at least pay attention to a pretty significant thing I've mentioned: there is a ceiling on Social Security. After a particular income, you no longer pay more into SSI. So, no, it doesn't rob from the rich. In fact, it disproportionally excludes the rich.

Perhaps I should illustrate it:
At the ceiling (let's call it N), one pays 6.2% * N.
Above the ceiling, one ... still pays 6.2% * N.
$100,000,000 above the ceiling, one still pays 6.2% * N.

Right now, N = $117,000. SSI implicitly does not target the rich. On the other hand, Medicare has no ceiling.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Willtell

Well then since tax cuts 'dont work' the poor, and middle class' needs to give theirs up.

*crickets'

Ooh clever, except for the fact that the argument is that tax cuts FOR JOB CREATORS is what CREATES JOBS.

What's that? It doesn't say anything about the non-job creators?

Sorry, but your reversal is inapplicable.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Indigo5
And in all fairness, what of those percentages are people that live in Democrat voting pockets?

Boying ing ing



Looks like it's 50:50 Democrat:Republican, to me.
(Red) Mississippi 7.3
(Blue) California 7.2
(Red) Georgia 7.2
(Blue) Rhode Island 7.1
(Blue) Oregon 7.0
(Blueish purple?) Nevada 6.9
(Red) Arizona 6.8
(Red) Tenessee 6.8
(Blue) Michigan 6.7
(Red) South Carolina 6.7



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I'm talking about voting precincts, not entire states or even counties, and maybe not even entire cities.

How many unemployed live inside a Democrat voting precinct?





top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join