Greenspan: We can't afford McCain's tax cuts

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   




Currently there are several states that are running on budget deficits. Most states get large amounts of money for roads.

I can agree with you about the CIA and the war machine.

So, states should still be taxing income but not the federal. I think if the federal income tax was eliminated you would see state taxes rise significantly. And again, states SHOULD balance budgets and be responsible but some will not. So what is the solution when a state runs a deficit so long that they cannot pay for police, fire, roads, corrections officers, etc. What do you do when a state fails? You would see states without sufficient police force, or fire, I'm sure you can see the problems with these kinds of short falls.

I'm not talking about entry regulation, what about regulating monopolies? Insider trading?(SEC), I guess I'm refering to regulation that pervents abuse of either the environment and/or the citizens.




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 


I view fruit of labor and gains from capital two different things. The latter couldn't happen without first the labor having been done. Taxing huge incomes that people make off of money made by others is different than taxing a dump truck driver or a trash collector who trades their hard physical labor directly for their pay, and a pay that barely supports themselves and family.

In a truly "free market" capitalist system, you wouldn't have a govn't. military to defend the golden goose...it would be up to the companies to pay for that directly where they saw fit. Either way they would "pay" to protect their assets right? When they transport goods from production facility to market the trucks drive on roads right? The water that flushes the toilets at the can on the second floor of regional headquarters comes from a municipal sewage and water treatment plant right? My point is these things are all needed and provided by the govn't in exchange for tax revenue. The rich benefit obviously the most, and have a lot more to contribute. Now if the working class were paid a hell of a lot more they too could afford to contribute more, and would also be benefiting more.

Finally, in another post it was brought up that regulation limits consumer choice. Um, before regulation of food such as meat packing, consumers were getting sick and dieing due to contamination etc...it took govn't regulation so that consumers could even exist to make a choice. Regulation keeps things like airline jets safe by forcing companies to pay for expensive preventative maintenance on aircraft that otherwise if left up to the "free market" (a myth anyway) wouldn't happen. Regulations have come about because it was necessary and needed in and by society. Why turn back the clock and repeat the madness we had in history? Take Iraq for instance, the neo-cons planned it to be a free for all and tried to install open and free markets whereby everyone was on their own...it resulted in unemployment figures that shot through the roof, civil unrest, and the free market capitalist haven that was supposed to trickle down and help everybody only ended up helping, as usual, the wealthy few.

Checks and measures are necessary for a whole myriad of reasons. Can they be abused or unfair? Of course, and that's why we have the public forum and vote for candidates that will best represent our interests. The problem is however, that the wealthy interests can buy up this representation with their vast store houses of wealth and influence, while we the common working folk and poor scrape to get by and send in our spare change that buys us very little influence.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   


I can agree with you about the CIA and the war machine. So, states should still be taxing income but not the federal. I think if the federal income tax was eliminated you would see state taxes rise significantly. And again, states SHOULD balance budgets and be responsible but some will not.

Sure, some state will not be able to fund their budgets, and they will have to borrow or have to make cuts where they can. It is very important that they do so. Remember, lots of the problems these states are facing regarding financing is that they poorly forecasted their streams of revenues. They thought the good times were never going to end, and hired more employees or increased the size of their expenditures, not taking into account that property values would tank as well as a recession may occur. We are all facing some tough economic times ahead, tough choices need to be made. The STATES will only "FAIL" if they continue to spend what they don't have. They have to make the cuts that are necessary during these lean years.





So what is the solution when a state runs a deficit so long that they cannot pay for police, fire, roads, corrections officers, etc. What do you do when a state fails? You would see states without sufficient police force, or fire, I'm sure you can see the problems with these kinds of short falls.


Well, you can believe that those things you mentioned above will not be among the priority to be cut during the lean years. What the politicians don't want is to make any sacrifices!! Look at what's happening in California they have a huge budget shortfall, nobody wants to make any cuts!! States, must make the necessary cuts or increase the taxes, but who wants that when the economy is slowing down.





I'm not talking about entry regulation, what about regulating monopolies?
Well technically monopolies are usually granted by the state. In a free-market or a real Capitalist society where not copyright laws existed or any of these other prohibitive measures existed it would be almost impossible for monopolies to exist. Why? Well, take the argument of just what a monopoly does... People say that a monopoly out competes its competitor then it raises the price and makes an exorbitant profit? But wouldn't making this exorbitant profit that I mention, be incentive enough for other competitor to come in and try to take a peace of the market share? If there were no barriers to entry and huge profits were at stake would eliminate the possibility of monopolies. The existence of monopolies will only occur when these large corporation make the argument or the case of "a public" good for restrictions or legislation.




Insider trading?(SEC), I guess I'm refering to regulation that pervents abuse of either the environment and/or the citizens.

These things can be protected by enforcing contracts or private property rights, which is pretty much already in the Constitution. Just like a corporation cannot dump toxic waste in my backyard, because it is my property so to cannot an employee of a company should not make a trade that will benefit him at the expense of shareholders.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow


I view fruit of labor and gains from capital two different things. The latter couldn't happen without first the labor having been done.
They are part of the same process since labor cannot occur in a vacuum. It takes Capital for investment to make labor have any meaning. For a company to have any gains as far as profits it needs to constantly invest so as to keep consumers happy and maintain its profit share or increase it. Thus when you TAX capital you're digging into future investment that may have increased labor.




Taxing huge incomes that people make off of money made by others is different than taxing a dump truck driver or a trash collector who trades their hard physical labor directly for their pay, and a pay that barely supports themselves and family.
I agree, that's why I think all forms of taxes are bad. That money doesn't fall from the sky. When you take it; be it from either the rich or the poor, it's certainly not being used in the best way the for the market to dictate. Instead this money is taken to D.C. where the politicians get to spend it on what they want, and by proxy on what a few have lobbied for.




In a truly "free market" capitalist system, you wouldn't have a govn't. military to defend the golden goose...it would be up to the companies to pay for that directly where they saw fit.

Either way they would "pay" to protect their assets right? When they transport goods from production facility to market the trucks drive on roads right?
Yes, in a free market property rights would still exist. If you held-up a truck and confiscated its contents you would be liable to compensate the owner, since you are infringing on his/her property. You could either argue this through privates courts, or as in our REAL WORLD case have the local police enforce or judicial system. The military should not be used to enforce property right, as it is currently being used. The military was and should be used to defend us from a foreign enemy. US being 300 million people.



The water that flushes the toilets at the can on the second floor of regional headquarters comes from a municipal sewage and water treatment plant right? My point is these things are all needed and provided by the govn't in exchange for tax revenue.
Well, it maybe provided by the government but it doesn't mean that they are the only ones most efficient at providing this good.




The rich benefit obviously the most, and have a lot more to contribute. Now if the working class were paid a hell of a lot more they too could afford to contribute more, and would also be benefiting more.
This is a misnomer, corporations pay higher utility rates than individuals. Water, Electricity, Waste disposals rates are not the same across the board. In most instances except the case of the Agricultural Industry these rates are higher for businesses than individuals. Just ask any business owner.

Also just because Paris Hilton flushes her toilet, the same as I does not mean that we should advocate making her pay more because her bank account is bigger than ours. That is a morally reprehensible argument. Sure, she can flush it ten times more per day as an individual because she can afford it if she wishes so, and therefore her utility bill will be 10 times higher than mine. But that is okay, because she is obviously still paying into the system.

I think you are confusing the financial ability to pay more with the OBLIGATION TO pay more, made up by individuals like yourself or others that fall into the Marxist dogma.




Finally, in another post it was brought up that regulation limits consumer choice. Um, before regulation of food such as meat packing, consumers were getting sick and dieing due to contamination etc...
Are you making the argument that without government we would all still be eating rotten meat? Industries make these corrections on their own, since they are in business to make money. If meat is rotten or bad, people will stop eating it and turn towards other substitutes or other producers of meat. Thus hurting the bottom line and losing profits. So it is in the interest of food manufacturers to produce the best product they can.




it took govn't regulation so that consumers could even exist to make a choice.
So you are making the case that Regulation increases choice?





Regulation keeps things like airline jets safe by forcing companies to pay for expensive preventative maintenance on aircraft that otherwise if left up to the "free market" (a myth anyway) wouldn't happen.
So without the FAA the airlines would have no necessary reason to keep jets running and safe? They would I suppose fly all the jets they had until they fell from the sky...



Regulations have come about because it was necessary and needed in and by society.
Regulations have been created to protect industry and their interests. Just look at who is the first to applaud the banking industry regulation; Bankers, or Airline Regulation; Airlines, Energy regulation; Energy Industry. You think the public is savvy enough to organize themselves and write up these regulations? You've got to be kidding!! Regulation legislation is primarily written by those that know their own industry and primarily to benefit themselves and limit their competitors.


Why turn back the clock and repeat the madness we had in history? Take Iraq for instance, the neo-cons planned it to be a free for all and tried to install open and free markets whereby everyone was on their own...it resulted in unemployment figures that shot through the roof, civil unrest, and the free market capitalist haven that was supposed to trickle down and help everybody only ended up helping, as usual, the wealthy few.


Again the WAR in Iraq has nothing to do with capitalism. It is to do with CORPORATISM and the elite power structure. Instead of questioning the regulation that has solidified their power structure some of you guys welcome it, hell even want to further advance it through further protectionism or subsidizing. I say, good luck to you libs, you will not accomplish a thing.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Well, Greenspan said it.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 





Also just because Paris Hilton flushes her toilet, the same as I does not mean that we should advocate making her pay more because her bank account is bigger than ours. That is a morally reprehensible argument. Sure, she can flush it ten times more per day as an individual because she can afford it if she wishes so, and therefore her utility bill will be 10 times higher than mine. But that is okay, because she is obviously still paying into the system.


That has to be one of the funniest analogy I have ever read on here. Bravo!!! Thanks for the reply too. Do you think she actually flushes her own toilet? If that family has say 5 bathrooms on each floor, they could easily pay people, with benifits, in three rotating full time shifts to do the flushing, or stand there and wait for someone to come around...and then someone else to turn on the tap for handwashing and a third set of workers to run towels. I'm pretty sure she uses two ply however, that I'm certain of. lol.

I noticed you didn't comment on aircraft preventative maintenance regulations. On the rotten meat, I'd have to say that it was tried before and it didn't work...people got sick and died when it was left up to the "free market". I for one don't want to return to those days and repeat the experiment over again, besides being stupid, it could be fatal!

Another interesting thing about power is that it costs a lot more to run power lines out into rural areas, so if we pulled regulations, the folks who live out in the rural red states would have to pay 10 times more for their juice...same with phone service and road costs. Why should the urban democrat subsidize the country republican? I'm being facetious, but you get the picture hopefully. We do these things in the interest of creating infrastructure and making our nation strong. We regulate not just in the interest of profit for shareholders, but we regulate in the interest of other stakeholders such as consumers (who want to live after eating the product), employees, even the birds and the fish. You can't have good productive employees if they are home puking because the sausage they ate for breakfast had axel grease and rat turds in it. You can't sell products to consumers if they are shot and killed by stray bullets from an automatic assault weapon on their way to the store. You can't run a modern dairy out in the sticks without power and transport the milk into town without driving on a paved road. Without safety regulations, and integral infrastructure it would be difficult if not impossible to meet the obligations of the constitution and the people's right to persue happiness with life and liberty. I think the issue then becomes not one of do we have it or not, but one of where is the happy medium.

As you pointed out rightfully, we (USA, although the stakeholder model works in other countries too) are 300 million people, and I might add the cliché' "we're all in it together".


[edit on 14-9-2008 by skyshow]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 


Hold on, I'll have to reply later. Jesus, it's almost 2 and I have a ton of things to do.


I'll reply later...
-G

[edit on 14-9-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Rea easy of him to say that,he is one that got us in this mess,then he bails out,hard to take his word on anything,actions speak louder then words,and his actions have already spoken



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by Krieger



This is the plan. Obama will cut it for the bottom 90%. He will cut it more then McCain will. But that's apparently a bad thing. The Bottom 90% need to be taxed so the top 10% can get more tax money. After all they get more tax money through corporate welfare from the government then every little person on welfare has in the entire history of welfare. But that poor black man getting 300dollars a month is the problem not the old white billionaire getting 20billion dollars.


With your permission kreiger, Im posting that tax comparison everywhere I post when this debate comes up. OBAMA ACTUALLY HELPS OUT THE MIDDLE CLASS and takes care of spending by raising it on the upper 10%. I highly doubt most Mccain supporters are in the upper 10% bracket. Why would the yvote against themselves?


What you guys are forgetting is...

That we are employed by the upper class... Who here works for someone that makes less than them??? The Gvmt raises taxes, you get fired...

and Corperations PAY NO TAXES!!! the taxes they pay trickles down to you thru higher costs of goods and services...

How again does raising taxes on the upper class help the lower and middle class??? Not to mention that the chart above does not take into account that the guy getting a 19 dollar decrease didnt pay a dime INTO the tax system, and that the guy at the top of the chart is already paying HALF his salary to the goverment...

OBAMA supports SOCIALISM... Welcome to the USSR



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Twilly
 


Sometimes it's necessary to think outside of the box to grasp larger concepts as it were. Taxes fund things like infrastructure improvement...when roads and bridges are built it employs people who do the work who then have money to buy things like homes, cars, clothing and be able to afford things like vacations, movies, going out to eat etc...taxes also fund research and development projects so that the one dollar gets stretched into say 6 dollars...education funding improves our competitiveness in a global society and thus we all benefit from the wise spending of tax dollars. In a nutshell (because it's rather vast and complex when we are talking about allocation of billions of dollars) this is how taxing someone in the upper 10% can actually increase their bottom line while increasing yours as well.

I can understand arguing about the level of taxation and spending, but to go on and compare this to the USSR is ridiculous to say the least. I'm so tired of hearing this every time someone doesn't agree with the old right wing Republican “trickle down” policy or supports helping the poor that they are labeled a communist...so if you volunteer in the community at a soup kitchen, or help out with something at your church that ends up helping the needy by that same definition you would be a communist; does that make sense? When someone makes hundreds of millions of dollars per year off the backs of the working class and uses national infrastructure in order to profit, they need to pay their fair share. We had economic growth before the 1970’s, and since then trillions of dollars in tax cuts have been given to the ultra wealthy under both democratic and republican administrations and many of these ultra wealthy have moved their headquarters over seas and taken their money with them that they made here anyway, so don’t tell me that the only way these folks will take away jobs is if we ask them to pay their fair share. If you want to do business in America, you pay for the right to do so, or else it’s don’t let the door hit ya’ where the good lord split ya’…that goes for Cheney’s Halliburton now in Dubai too with their crooked contracts and kickbacks.

Another thing I don't understand, is why so many who don't make a lot of money support policy that is not in their best interest. It's analagous to me of a slave supporting legalized slavery in order to protect their room and board. Wasn't that one argument for it back in those days? Guess what, we banned slavery, put into place worker protection laws, pushed for the 40 hour work week, banned child labor, put in place the minimum wage law, enacted environmental protection laws and so on and so forth, and the economy grew and new jobs were created so don't tell me giving them [the wealthy] free rain to do as they please is the only way we can protect or create jobs because history over and over again has shown us that this is not the case.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Krieger
 



Measured against current law and against the promises of his fellow Democrats, Obama would rack up huge deficits. According to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018.


source


This is according to your source also..Guess they both have problem.

Especially if you think the rich is just going to sit back and let him tax them all he wants. All they will do is go overseas, reduce jobs, or invest in foreign markets, There is just too many loopholes and that is why they have the finest people,Congress, working for them.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Twilly
 


The trickle down effect doesnt seem to be working with unemployment and job losses as high as it is right now, i do believe Obama has a better plan for the economy gfrows from the bottom up, people with money will buy things and increase supply and demand, which will bring about more jobs and people will be able to pay off their mortgage lenders so we wont have another fannie and freddie problem, becuase thats where our tax dollars have been directed for bail out



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Twilly

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by Krieger



This is the plan. Obama will cut it for the bottom 90%. He will cut it more then McCain will. But that's apparently a bad thing. The Bottom 90% need to be taxed so the top 10% can get more tax money. After all they get more tax money through corporate welfare from the government then every little person on welfare has in the entire history of welfare. But that poor black man getting 300dollars a month is the problem not the old white billionaire getting 20billion dollars.


With your permission kreiger, Im posting that tax comparison everywhere I post when this debate comes up. OBAMA ACTUALLY HELPS OUT THE MIDDLE CLASS and takes care of spending by raising it on the upper 10%. I highly doubt most Mccain supporters are in the upper 10% bracket. Why would the yvote against themselves?


What you guys are forgetting is...

That we are employed by the upper class... Who here works for someone that makes less than them??? The Gvmt raises taxes, you get fired...

and Corperations PAY NO TAXES!!! the taxes they pay trickles down to you thru higher costs of goods and services...

How again does raising taxes on the upper class help the lower and middle class??? Not to mention that the chart above does not take into account that the guy getting a 19 dollar decrease didnt pay a dime INTO the tax system, and that the guy at the top of the chart is already paying HALF his salary to the goverment...

OBAMA supports SOCIALISM... Welcome to the USSR


This is pretty close to the mark. However in lieu of the "upper-class" “small business America” would be more appropriate. What most people don't realize is that most small business are S-corps which means the profits of the business flow to the individual tax returns. Most of the 'profit' on a tax return is not actually cash recieved by the individual but is reinvested into the business to grow the business and create jobs. It is easy to have a populist message and say you are going to only tax the top 10% but the reality is the top 10% are the people who provide most of the jobs and prosperity in this country.

I’d say Gateway is making the most sense on this thread.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Heres a prettier 1 with color and pictures and shows the differences




Source



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.


source

That's a lot of tax money we are missing out on.


Drug companies and other multinational companies based in the U.S. systematically avoid paying tax in the U.S. on their profits.


source

Just too many loop holes or gray areas.


The Redmond company makes products here but records software sales to PC makers and high-volume customers through an operation in Nevada, where there is no corporate tax. So Washington is missing out on revenue it could use for badly needed infrastructure needs — like replacement of the 520 bridge.


source

Microsoft knows how to play the game.


But the real reason these companies. rich people get away with this is because politicians write the bills.


He and other tax specialists said they were unsure whether the no-taxes-paid trend is likely to accelerate. But they offered greater assurance that federal officials anticipated the likely outcome of the tax law changes.

"My sense of it is that the people who introduce these provisions know exactly who is going to benefit," Gleckman said.


source

Obama's plan sound great but their will always be loopholes to get around it.

Maybe they ought to get a nonpartisan group to write up a fair plan once either one gets elected. Both seem to hurt us either way.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Thank you Allen Greenspan for your contribution.

"WE" cant afford?

I dont think he means "him" and "other people" when he says "we".

He could pay taxes for every town in the Illinois area and still have $300 billion left, while eating "giant panda stew" everyday.

Not to sound saracastic mods, but

Thats my two cents.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Obama's tax plan will bring in more money then McCains and unlike McCain he won't start another war, he'll actually end one. Gee, will be nice not dumping a trillion dollars in Iraq, Iran, and Afganistan every milisecond like McCain wants.*

*I know it isn't a Trillion every Milisecond to fund the wars in those three nations that McCain wants them in, but it is really frakking expensive to run three wars just so Halliburton's stock will go up a quarter of a point.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more...

Where have we heard that before?

What system does it signify?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more...


Those poor rich people! Check this out:

The "L" Curve

The red line represents income. I would imagine that most of us here on ATS are around the 50 to 95 yard lines.





The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.

Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000
The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year...
At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000...
The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line.
From there it keeps going up...it goes up 50 km (~30 miles) on this scale!


Obama's plan taxes people on the 98 yard line and up. I think they'll be all right.

I suggest people go to this site and zoom in and out and read the dialog to get an idea of just how insanely out of balance the income among people in this country is. It's an eye-opener.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Obama's rhetorical pablum is designed to incite a rich vs poor class war between Americans. The initiate will believe that the rich are the problem, and stealing from them and redistributing the wealth will solve the economic problems.

That is a failed strategy as history has proven over and over again. But it sounds good and sells well among the abecedarians.





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join