Obama demands tax rises for rich over fiscal cliff

reply to post by FlyersFan


Those are some very good ideas; I agree with doing those too.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by samlf3rd

 

Apparently math and history isn't your strong suit... Help the deficit? ROTFLMAO! The money they will collect is a drop in the ocean and not one damn cent will go to deficit reduction they will continue to raise the debt ceiling like they have always done! And yes this has been tried before and failed every time!

You people that believe this nonsense are insane and have no clue how things work you won't get it till your living under a bridge and most of you still won't get it, you'll still be blaming all "those evil rich people" Sigh!

Show us where it failed under Clinton.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by samlf3rd

 

Money, power and greed...many of the wealthy are really greedy...this we all know.

However...really the rich in money can afford to pay more taxes...and if they pay more taxes...they will still be wealthy...it will not be a hardship on them to pay out a few more dollars.

I think President Obama is right on this.

money, power and greed indeed. when i see topics like this come up i often wonder if people realize exactly why these problems exist at all. it has nothing to do with taxes, it has everything to do with the Keynesian economics system and the debt based society it prescribes.

when debt was first used as income for others, it pretty much signed, sealed and delivered the citizens of any country to a life of debt and menial income.

from one great injustice has spread all levels of deceit that we see in our governments today and on top of that, most people spend a large portion of their time arguing about the symptoms and never seeing the disease that causes it.

the days of borrowing money from private institutions and loaning it to the people (the citizens) at interest, must come to a close for anything to begin to recover. we the people should be using our own money to loan to ourselves at no interest and it has to be based on real assets, no hedging, no betting, no BS that we see from the FED.

you go out and work, you work hard, put your time in doing something constructive, well most people do as well. the bankers not so much. they produce NOTHING, they have nothing to show for what they have stripped from the people. they didn't build anything, service anything, maintain anything, support anything, feed anything, grow anything, fix anything and so on, but they make 95% of the worlds wealth.

how long will people be blind to the fact that the top 95% of the worlds money is paid for doing 0% of the work that it takes to run a world. just keep focused on the dems and repubs and taxes while the real thieves, keep us divided and run off with the loot.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by kaylaluv
To raise taxes on the rich would be a minor inconvenience for the rich.

If the government wouldn't waste money and overspend, then no one would be threatened with having their earned money taken away from them.

think of if as the patriotic duty of the rich.

That sounds a lot like a left winger trying to push his/her 'moral values' onto the right. Something the left keeps saying the right shouldn't do to them with abortion and 'God' and all. Think about it for a bit ...

All the studies show that when the rich pay more taxes, things get better, not worse. It's really a no-brainer.

All the studies I've seen on TV show that if the rich were forced to hand over their money to the state, then it wouldn't do anything to help the economy. SPENDING CONTROL is what is needed .. not handing more money over to the government to misuse (like they always do).

So, you think there should be no taxes at all, for anyone? Good luck with that.

Patriotism has nothing to do with God. It has to do with helping your country out. Warren Buffet is all for it.

What studies on what TV show - you mean Fox?

Originally posted by kaylaluv
So, you think there should be no taxes at all, for anyone? Good luck with that.

:shk: Where do you get that??? I have said over and over .. probably on this very thread for all I know ... that there should be a FLAT TAX. Everyone pay the same percentage. That way you aren't rewarded for not working .. you aren't penalized for being productive .. and everyone pays the same percent. It's the ONLY fair tax. Couple that with SMART SPENDING .. something that neither the republicans nor democrats seem to be able to do .. and there should be no calls to raise the percentage of the flat tax.

RESPONSIBLE SPENDING and FLAT TAX PERCENTAGE.

This is where we separate the men from the boys. No more debate on economic theory. No more pontification of what will work, what has worked,what does work.

We will be able to experience (in real time) the effects of liberal policies. We will see;
If prices go up because manufacturers are being taxed more.
If unemployment increases or decreases.
If foodstamp usage increases or decreases
If the value of the dollar rises or falls

We will see if liberal policies succeed or fail.

We'll also see if the leftist pols and their fans support and own up to the results.

(Popcorn, munching, waiting, watching)

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


Thank you...you have given to me a lot of (food for thought); I am learning!

We need to start payig off towards the 16 trillion dollar debt, which means stop spending and start taking in more taxes, the spending won't stop though. It's a vicious cycle the more money they take in the more they'll spend, raise the debt ceiling etc...what needs to be done is to let it crash and start all over. Purification through fire.

There are 96 billionaires in America. All told the amount of money they have does not add up to even 1 trillion dollars. If we take all their money it will not pay for one year of government. Spending must be cut. Runaway spending can not be sustained. Those on assistance will not receive their checks. The day is coming. Chaos will ensue.

wiki.answers.com...

Flat taxes do not work. It's nice in theory, but it's not rational thinking. Lets say someone is making 20,000.00 a year and they have to pay 10% taxes. They now have an expendable income of 18,000.00 a year. Factor in sales taxes which is roughly 6% for nearly every state...now they have paid close to 3,080.00 dollars in taxes. Let's consider property taxes...how about interest on credit cards.....

It is a compounding problem....flat tax does not work...the idea of the "sliding scale" we now see is logical and relevant. Why? it's all based on the idea of minimums. Everyone has a minimum that they need to provide food clothing and shelter. The sliding scale addresses that. Now in comparison...if I make 100,000.00 a year and pay 10% income taxes and 6% sales tax....I still have a whole lot more liquid capital when all is said and done....so what do I do with that? I can either get my butt spanked in big taxes from another source...or I can invest and use that money and keep it out of the tax man's grubby paws....this is prob the wisest idea. The sliding scale taxation plan was created so that people would not hoard wealth...it forces them to use it or lose it.

9-9-9 was a fallacy...flat taxes do not work. If everyone made 100k a year...sure...they would be fine...but that is not reality.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by samlf3rd

 

Apparently math and history isn't your strong suit... Help the deficit? ROTFLMAO! The money they will collect is a drop in the ocean and not one damn cent will go to deficit reduction they will continue to raise the debt ceiling like they have always done! And yes this has been tried before and failed every time!

You people that believe this nonsense are insane and have no clue how things work you won't get it till your living under a bridge and most of you still won't get it, you'll still be blaming all "those evil rich people" Sigh!

Show us where it failed under Clinton.

Sure since you are to lazy to do your own research and repeat the myths

According to U.S. Treasury figures at Debt to the Penny, on January 20, 1993, as Bill Clinton took office, the total outstanding public debt was $4.1 trillion. On January 19, 2001, that same figure had increased to $5.7 trillion.

www.nationalreview.com...

And here is what really happened during the clinton era
www.forbes.com...

Originally posted by MyHappyDogShiner
The wealthy of american society today are little more than modern day royalty.

I say,lets bring a little balance.

Now the my money is my money argument begins from those who have more than they need.

I say that the small amount of income I generate should be left alone for me to use,instead of paying into infrastructure for some arrogant showoff in his/her lexus to use.

You don't get rich by paying your way,you get rich by finding ways not to.

Who are you to determine how much others "need" ?

Chances are the tax on their Lexus is more than you pay in income taxes anyways, so who really benefits the economy more?

The wealthy do.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Seriously .... the only FAIR TAX is a FLAT TAX. Make everyone pay the same percentage no matter how much they make. Overtaxing the productive in society is financial suicide for the country. Atlas will shrug. They'll take their money and their business elsewhere.

If I was dictator of the USA, and if someone wanted to skirt their taxes by moving their money and business elsewhere and still do business in the USA or Canada.
I would get rid of free trade and declare that if you live here and do business here, you will be tariff free.

I remember FREE TRADE with Brian Mulrooney, and Rotten Ronald Reagan, that's the time when people started losing jobs and corporate profits started going way up.
That's when we in North America saw that we had to compete on a level playing field with 3rd world pay rate slave labour, lack of environmental controls, and safety, no unions etc.

So yeah, if Nike or Apple wants to make their crap over there and sell there stuff at extreme profit mark-ups, make them pay some sort of 'didn't create jobs here tax'
Perhaps people that actually create local jobs, should be rewarded for hiring here and not there. But don't give tax breaks to the rich for being rich, but only if they create jobs, HERE.

That makes sense IMO.
If you create jobs here, you pay less taxes here, period.
You create jobs there, you want to do business here, you pay much more tax.

reply to post by FlyersFan


A flat tax favors the wealthy even more than the current system. You would have to set the tax based on the lowest percentile earners or risk destroying them. so around 5 % would be the max someone making 7.25 an hour could spare and potentially make rent.

I'm tired of hearing about it.

I say tax em all to hell and then watch as we spend that and a few trillion more than we take in the first year.
The next year it will be three trillion.
The next it will be four.

We can do that for the next four years and take bets on when the dollar collapses.

If we're lucky, we can rebuild the economy in 20 or thirty years.

The government never will go after the real money anyway. Just the ones who are on track to actually becoming wealthy.

A few extra percent on $250,000.00 is chicken feed when a president adds 1.5 trillion a year to the deficit while he's actually trying to get reelected.

Now he has nothing to lose. I say he adds 10 trillion to the deficit by 2016. He might add a half trillion in taxes if he's lucky.

What do we gain?

Reduce the size of the federal government or be bled dry.

reply to post by hawkiye



Well, it looks like according to your article (whose publisher is a multi-millionaire, so he's not biased or anything), Clinton raised a whole lot of taxes in his first term, but only lowered capital gains taxes and raised death tax exemption. I haven't heard Obama wanting to raise capital gains tax - only income tax on income over $250,000, which is looks like Clinton never lowered in his second term. So, a continued higher income tax on the rich, and decreased spending and - Boom, prosperity. What this article fails to mention, is that Bush came along and lowered a whole bunch of taxes, didn't decrease spending and.... where were the jobs and prosperity???

Where you going to get your spending control from?

Because you could take every dollar spent outside of the military, SS and medicaid budget and make it disappear, and there would still be a HUGE deficit.

And you can't cut SS and medicaid without pushing a hundred million people -- who have paid into THAT system for their entire working lives -- deeper into poverty.

And you can't slash military spending willy nilly either. Frankly -- there are probably 10 or more "jobs" in the US -- directly related to defense -- that contribute to our overall economic capacity and health, and cutting those would gut the economy as well.

Frankly -- the only solutions are very long term, and reduce spending through attrition over ten or more years -- while funneling a portion into new areas, over time.

Finally -- none of this means anything if you don't substantially address capital gains, citizens united, term limits, seniority and the concept of "full-employment" -- which, by definition cannot exist in a world of technological efficiencies + growing populations of educated humans seeking jobs.

Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Partisan band-aids placate the great unwashed, but make problems worse over the long haul.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Income tax is by itself -- nothing. The lions share of the wealth generated in this world belongs to those who earn minimal or no "income" in the traditional sense. Capital gains must be modified upwards -- slowly -- to around 22%, with some exemptions for people who earn the majority of their "wealth" via "income."

In a world where over half the "wealth" of our nation is owned and controlled by less than 1000 people, the only available "resource" is buried in their deductions.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Well, it looks like according to your article (whose publisher is a multi-millionaire, so he's not biased or anything), Clinton raised a whole lot of taxes in his first term, but only lowered capital gains taxes and raised death tax exemption. I haven't heard Obama wanting to raise capital gains tax - only income tax on income over $250,000, which is looks like Clinton never lowered in his second term. So, a continued higher income tax on the rich, and decreased spending and - Boom, prosperity. What this article fails to mention, is that Bush came along and lowered a whole bunch of taxes, didn't decrease spending and.... where were the jobs and prosperity???

Reading comprehension...sigh! I give up its a waste of time trying to educate the deaf dumb and blind... Good luck with your delusions...

No option will be presented by those already living the american dream,that will allow the vast majority to live it too.

It would reduce their already exorbitant standard of living.

And we all sit around here blabbering about the options set before us like we know something about anything.

There are no viable options without making a lot of changes,resources are finite,there is too much money in the system,and the whole mess is a great big fkn scam anyway.

Big Fake Economy.

Reset.