GOP caves, Speaker Boehner says taxes will be raised on the rich

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Is there some reason you folks are not understanding? Raise taxes --> Less government revenue.
Yet you argue for rasing taxes on the rich even though it will generate less revenue. Is there really that much of a logic gap in those trained in the government controlled education camps.

Let's actually look at the numbers. In todays Wall Street Journal (Friday Sept. 7 2012) there is an article by Peter Schiff entitled "The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate". In that article he cites the following statistics. In 1958 the top 1/3 of income earners paid 29% of federal taxes. Today the top 3% pay 49.7% of all our taxes.

When was the economy better? 1958 or under Obama? Unfortunately your class envy will not result in politics that improve the situation for the common man. Don't be like Obama, wanting to tax the rich just to get back at their success.

Now if you want a real argument against neocons, take on the globalists. Those are your real enemies. Unfortunately I've never seen a president more disposed to surrendering to them under UN oversight than this one. You would logically think that a liberal would be against global monopolistic governance, but apparently not.

Originally posted by bknapple32


It is happening. I don't know if this has been posted yet. Opinions? I know this will be a heated debate. Im not in favor of socialism, and I dont think Obama is either, But to go back to Clinton rates, will bring the economy back. I fully believe that. The bush tax cuts had their time, and their ramifications, ie the recession of 08. Now its time to try something different. Who knows, it just might work!!!

Taxes to increase revenues with the massive annual deficit spending is like giving a vitamin to someone with arterial bleeding. First stop the cause of the problem (spending/bleeding), then ONCE STOPPED, heal the damage (revenues increases/vitamins). Revenue increases can be done by more people being employed that pay taxes INTO the treasury instead of unemployed and collecting FROM the treasury.

Originally posted by bknapple32


It is happening. I don't know if this has been posted yet. Opinions? I know this will be a heated debate. Im not in favor of socialism, and I dont think Obama is either, But to go back to Clinton rates, will bring the economy back. I fully believe that. The bush tax cuts had their time, and their ramifications, ie the recession of 08. Now its time to try something different. Who knows, it just might work!!!

The Bush tax cuts did not cause the 08 crash. It was Dodd/Frank/Schumer intentionally fouling the housing and banking laws to make sure Republicans looked bad for the presidential election and get a Democrat in. Democrats held the House from 2006-2010 are were in charge of all spending, laws on spending and taxation. Bush should have run his veto pen dry and didn't stop the intentional destruction the congress put on his desk. Needless to say it got away from even the Democrats and we are still suffering what they did today.

reply to post by MidnightTide

Also, would like people to notice that Boehner and Obama are in talks behind closed doors.

You mean by phone, don't you? Here's what Boehner had to say this morning...

He said the White House had “wasted another week” by not responding to House Republicans.

Boehner spoke to Obama by phone on Wednesday, and their staffs talked on Thursday.

“The phone call was pleasant, but it was more of the same,” he said.

Sounds like Obama is refusing to talk about anything until they agree to the tax increase.

Boehner said Republicans had taken a step toward the president since the election by offering new revenue, but he said the move had not been reciprocated by engagement from the Democrats on spending cuts and entitlement reforms.

“When is he going to take a step toward us?” the Speaker asked.

Boehner also criticized a comment by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who said in a television interview Wednesday that the White House was “absolutely” prepared to go over the year-end cliff if the Republicans did not agree to raise tax rates.

thehill.com...

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Is there some reason you folks are not understanding? Raise taxes --> Less government revenue.
Yet you argue for rasing taxes on the rich even though it will generate less revenue. Is there really that much of a logic gap in those trained in the government controlled education camps.

Who is "you folks"? I am not a liberal so obviously your point is mute. I already said I do not support raising taxes on the middle class. WHO ARE THE RICH? I will not ask you again, and if you fail to answer I will assume you are a billionare and put you on ignore.

Thanks!

Let's actually look at the numbers. In todays Wall Street Journal (Friday Sept. 7 2012) there is an article by Peter Schiff entitled "The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate". In that article he cites the following statistics. In 1958 the top 1/3 of income earners paid 29% of federal taxes. Today the top 3% pay 49.7% of all our taxes.

Yet there is no money circulating, small business is closing up, and the job market is depressed as a result. Then that means the government has to give out welfare compensation to make up the difference. The government has to continously tax and spend into oblivion.

Now if you want a real argument against neocons, take on the globalists. Those are your real enemies. Unfortunately I've never seen a president more disposed to surrendering to them under UN oversight than this one. You would logically think that a liberal would be against global monopolistic governance, but apparently not.

So the rich are the globalists? I would agree here, but need your confirmation first!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yes, there are a few paradoxes at play here. First, it is when does the whole thing run out of gas. The second is the people and the government.

The impasse between our elected government is not over financing. We all understand that the money eventually runs out. Rather, the impasse is about which past they are going to pretend to live in. Obama desires to live in the Clinton past with a higher tax rate replete with a social inurance scheme that Clinton failed to accomplish. The House Republicans want to live in the Bush past, with a frenzied economy and large military. The Tea Party Republicans that Boehner has displaced desire to live in some fictional narrative of an ideal past. None actually present any semblance of the reality the rest of us exist in.

Still, none present the radical realignment that we must embrace to crash successfully.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I was responding not just to your post but many others, especially among the liberal side of the political aisle who absolutely never let the facts get in the way of the policies they support. The fact that taxation does not support their supposed goals, but in fact hinders their goals, does not appear to enter into their reasoning process.

For them I would remind them that one of their favorite heroes, the philanderer in chief, Bill Clinton, was smart enough to realize that lowering taxes would increase the amount of money he could spend and he did so to great effect. Another liberal (who would be considered a right wing nut case if he ran today) is John F. Kennedy. He also realized that lower taxes and reduced burdens on business would improve his standing and his ability to launch crazy spending programs. His tax cuts resulting in a startling increase in government revenue. Enough so that it made the front page news of the day, I'm told.

So we have two smart liberals who at least were self serving enough to know that growing the economy increased government revenue. What I want to see is a reasoned response from the left. Not this scary emotional, class envy, response based on Marxist brainwashing. Liberals with common sense should abandon their soak the rich rhetoric. It is the path of failure. I would instead like to see a reasoned response concerning the role of government and why we need to continue funding the welfare state.

reply to post by SevenThunders

Bill Clinton, was smart enough to realize that lowering taxes would increase the amount of money he could spend and he did so to great effect.

Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top earners in 1993.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Another liberal (who would be considered a right wing nut case if he ran today) is John F. Kennedy. He also realized that lower taxes and reduced burdens on business would improve his standing and his ability to launch crazy spending programs. His tax cuts resulting in a startling increase in government revenue. Enough so that it made the front page news of the day, I'm told.
.

Then maybe we should go back the JFK tax rates. He lowered the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor

Still, none present the radical realignment that we must embrace to crash successfully.

What does "crash successfully" mean?

Is it occult speak?

Why would most want that?

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I was responding not just to your post but many others, especially among the liberal side of the political aisle who absolutely never let the facts get in the way of the policies they support. The fact that taxation does not support their supposed goals, but in fact hinders their goals, does not appear to enter into their reasoning process.

For them I would remind them that one of their favorite heroes, the philanderer in chief, Bill Clinton, was smart enough to realize that lowering taxes would increase the amount of money he could spend and he did so to great effect. Another liberal (who would be considered a right wing nut case if he ran today) is John F. Kennedy. He also realized that lower taxes and reduced burdens on business would improve his standing and his ability to launch crazy spending programs. His tax cuts resulting in a startling increase in government revenue. Enough so that it made the front page news of the day, I'm told.

So we have two smart liberals who at least were self serving enough to know that growing the economy increased government revenue. What I want to see is a reasoned response from the left. Not this scary emotional, class envy, response based on Marxist brainwashing. Liberals with common sense should abandon their soak the rich rhetoric. It is the path of failure. I would instead like to see a reasoned response concerning the role of government and why we need to continue funding the welfare state.

But you are looking through the capitalist microscope to make biased, wrong assumptions. Granted too much taxation of the upper middle class is wrong, as is over-regulation, but people who make more should pay more.

Trickle down economics of reagan was an utter scam that supposely giving the rich(whomever they are) tax breaks would somehow result in more job openings and a bigger economy. What we see in reality is jobs being shipped to third world countries with a much lower standard of living and with less regulations completly bypassing america except in terms of the service industries for the most part. Trickle down has not only cost america jobs, but has result in less revenue for the government collected overall. Then add all the loopholes I must have mentioned a thousand times already which means rich pay more in dollars but way less in terms of effective percentage rates. It is not difficult to comprehend!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


No. The US is going to collapse eventually. The best course now is to simply ensure that we can bottom out successfully and come back (like Russia).

Enjoy!

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Then maybe we should go back the JFK tax rates. He lowered the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.

You must have missed my earlier post on this topic. The 91% tax rate was paid by....... no one. Even the next tier down only garnered 240 or so tax payers out of 200 million citizens. In todays dollars that level was reached only if you were earning $10 million a year. Moreover you can't deny that lowering taxes raises revenue. It's inexorable. Look at this chart:




Guess what happens when you are earning $10 million a year and the government wants to take 90% of your haul. You leave town. if you know the thief lies in wait, you don't enter the alleyway. Why don't liberals understand common sense? You have to set tax rates at a rate that the rich don't blink an eye when they pay. 15% is more than enough. I personally think we should eliminate the income tax altogether as we did prior to the creation of our freedom robbing central bank.

Shift the whole tax burden on to the globalists and tax imports from China. Now that will get the rich's attention. This tax the home grown rich BS is self destructive. Tax the rich overseas who are stealing your country out from under you.

I knew this guy would cave; same old song and dance.

Originally posted by SevenThunders

Shift the whole tax burden on to the globalists and tax imports from China. Now that will get the rich's attention. This tax the home grown rich BS is self destructive. Tax the rich overseas who are stealing your country out from under you.

Exactly! All they have to do is drop out of the free trade agreements and start taxing imports again. Anything coming from china...bang 25% tarrifs, india 30%, tax everything! You want french wine, pay through the nose.

Start a trade war like before. THAT IS WHAT WE NEED! We need trade wars! I mean it. Bring back jobs faster than you can say good morning to someone. That will raise revenue FAST, keep jobs here and decimate wall street greed.

But I also support 50% income tax on those making $10million or more per year. All the fat cat, champagne drinking, truffle eating, tahitti vacationing, good only for decision making, upper east side, depopulation planning bottom feeders.

Sorry I am greedy like that! Did I ever tell you how much I hate reagan?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I really hope you dont think that they are good decision makers

OK so, theyve perhaps delayed the inevitable by a few months - a year more than before... what now?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

WHO ARE THE RICH? I will not ask you again, and if you fail to answer I will assume you are a billionare and put you on ignore.

So, is this how you respond to people who challenge your position on raising taxes on the rich? Honestly it won't just be the Superrich who are taxed and we all know the Superrich have their money in tax havens and won't pay the extra in taxes anyway, but it will be the middle class who suffers the most and that is the effect that Marxist socialism has, to destroy the bourgeois middle class merchants and Capitalists and the middle class in general. POTUS knew that the whole time he was spouting his rhetoric on "tax breaks for the wealthy". He is an Ace Marxist.
Also you guys are both correct that Classical Liberals would never submit to Totalitarian govt, but the liberals of today are not Classical and they do seem to be veering like lemmings over a cliff toward more and more Totalitarianism and centralized control. BIgger govt = less personal control over our own lives.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

All the fat cat, champagne drinking, truffle eating, tahitti vacationing,

While we are at it, let's stop the fat cat spending of govt employees on the taxpayer dime, as well as the lavish spending on the vacations of the WH King and Queen and their offspring. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

www.washingtonguardian.com...

www.sodahead.com...

13 yr old spending vacation in Mexico and guarded by 25 US Secret Service agents at taxpayer expense.