Should We Take The 1% Money to Pay off the Debt?

reply to post by Hefficide


1. Millionares are not the children of the middle class any more than the middle class are children of the poor. If anything, your analogy is comparable to the government's siezing of wealth via all their various outlets. You have a child who, through federal, state, and local taxes, regulations, fees, and such, are taking over 50% of the family's meal right at the start of the dinner... then, after you have saved a portion of your own meal (which the child has already claimed their dowry from) to take into a relative in the other room after you have finished eating, the child stops you and demands a large chunk of that, too (estate/death taxes).

2. Home values play an important role in determination of millionare status. Those home values used in most of these type of anti-wealthy articles aren't the actual value of the home or the value a bank would assess it at, but rather the value property tax assessors judge the home at, which are considerably higher than the real value. (Wow, yet another government loophole intended to separate a family from their money... property taxes. Land of the "free", home of the real owners of NOTHING. 'Murica! )

3. Still, the question remains, how does the mere status of success and wealth warrant the "fairness" of the government demand higher and higher dowries from the middle and upper incomes of the nation? How is it justifiable and "fair" (I love using that word because it is absolutely bullcrap. The mere nature of taxation, forcible separation of a man from the fruits of his personal labor is as opposed to the conept of "fairness" as promiscuity is apart from abstinence.) to expect anyone to hand over their sweat and tears to be redistributed to those who do not provide for themselves? How did we arrive at this time and age in which the parable of the grasshopper and the ant has gone from a valued lesson in hard work, self sufficiency, and honor to a detestable lesson of greed and elitism?

hose are withdrawls...not expenditures.. Unfunded wars?...now THAT is an expense.

Now that is a load of BS

Considering SS is an entitlement where a person only pays 4% per year in contributions.

The buck gets passed off(redistributing wealth) and matches that contribution,

Get that?

People are only paying 4% and recieving 100 percent of the benefits footed by someone else which does not get covered which is why morons scream tax the 1% that still doesn't cover it because people get older which costs more and that income disparity means the people who are paying still are not covering that expense.

Taxing the rich will solve everything

The biggest cause of income inequality is the federal reserve, and over 10 trillion dollars of worthless paper in circulation, which means goods cost more, and will continue to cost more, and that cycle rinses and repeats.

The terms millionaires and billionaires are meaningless because the extreme devaluation of the dollar.

Originally posted by Indigo5
That is "expenditures" in the same way that a bank would choose to label you withdrawing cash you deposited for safe keeping and interest...as an "expense"

Those are withdrawls...not expenditures.. Unfunded wars?...now THAT is an expense.

Possibly in the case of Social Security, but most entitlement spending is unfunded. SS and Medicare represent $800 Billion and $500 Billion of that $2100 Billion respectively. With moderate reforms to both, that figure could almost certainly be further reduced. The other $700 Billion represent actual welfare spending. THAT is no withdrawl... it is redistribution and earmarking of collected general tax monies. One huge reform that should be introduced is in regards to Social Security and Medicare eligibility. Simply put, if you never paid into the system, then being allowed to draw from the system represents and unfunded liability and is a direct tax expenditure.

I've made myself quite well known on the boards in regards to my thoughts on wars. Either claim spoils enough to at the very least offset all costs, preferably to even make them profitable on a federal level, or do not fight them at all. Thus the halving of the military budget.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by Hefficide

 

1. Millionares are not the children of the middle class any more than the middle class are children of the poor. If anything, your analogy is comparable to the government's siezing of wealth via all their various outlets. You have a child who, through federal, state, and local taxes, regulations, fees, and such, are taking over 50% of the family's meal right at the start of the dinner... then, after you have saved a portion of your own meal (which the child has already claimed their dowry from) to take into a relative in the other room after you have finished eating, the child stops you and demands a large chunk of that, too (estate/death taxes).

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350

The personal and dependency exemption will rise to $3,800
The standard deduction for married filing jointly will rise to $11,900
The standard deduction for singles will rise to $5,950

Source

You appeal to emotion, but the facts to support that appeal just aren't there. You'll argue that the poor can claim it back at the end of the year. I'll counter that the wealthy use shelters and loopholes to lessen their own burden.

This does not change the fact that the number of milionaires in the US grew by about 500% during the time that we got into this mess. And, like some bizarre game of musical chairs. Now that the band is no longer playing - they want to go home rather than being stuck there, standing.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

2. Home values play an important role in determination of millionare status. Those home values used in most of these type of anti-wealthy articles aren't the actual value of the home or the value a bank would assess it at, but rather the value property tax assessors judge the home at, which are considerably higher than the real value. (Wow, yet another government loophole intended to separate a family from their money... property taxes. Land of the "free", home of the real owners of NOTHING. 'Murica!

)

From my previous source ( as quoted in the previous post )

Merrill and Capgemini define millionaires as individuals with $1 million or more in investible assets, not including primary home, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables.

And regarding the home values? Before the crash... how many cable shows did we have about millionaires who flipped houses for their fortunes? How many of those who are currently wealthy GOT that way because of inflated property value?

Buy, inflate, sell, pop bubble.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

3. Still, the question remains, how does the mere status of success and wealth warrant the "fairness" of the government demand higher and higher dowries from the middle and upper incomes of the nation? How is it justifiable and "fair" (I love using that word because it is absolutely bullcrap. The mere nature of taxation, forcible separation of a man from the fruits of his personal labor is as opposed to the conept of "fairness" as promiscuity is apart from abstinence.) to expect anyone to hand over their sweat and tears to be redistributed to those who do not provide for themselves? How did we arrive at this time and age in which the parable of the grasshopper and the ant has gone from a valued lesson in hard work, self sufficiency, and honor to a detestable lesson of greed and elitism?

I did not use the word "fair" in my post.

In retort though I will say that, as a person who worked hard his entire life, often for next to nothing in wages and benefits, I know the pain of being separated from the fruits of my labor and it was certainly NOT fair, But I "took my medicine", swallowed hard, and did what needed to be done regardless.

~Heff

reply to post by MystikMushroom


if the government didn't pay back its debt, no one on earth will lend it any money.

it will never sell another bond, get anyone to do any infrastructure, have any employees, purchase a single plane, gun, bullet, couch and even a potted plant for the front door.

because no will believe or take the risk getting stiffed with the bill.

reply to post by Hefficide


The facts support that the middle class and the poor are getting more out than they are paying in which is are entitlements/expenses that add up to his figures.

I have yet to see a millionaire or billionaire use medicare,medicaid,and on foodstamps.

Ambassador Leo Wanta is willing to wipe out our debt all $16 Trillion of it but the PTB won't let him....

“America is bankrupt. They think that justifies stealing the money.” The money “they” are about to steal is $27.5 trillion of which $23 trillion belongs to you and me as American taxpayers. In 2003, a U.S. Federal District Court Judge made Ambassador Leo Wanta the legal Beneficiary of $27.5 trillion ($4.5 trillion belongs to him, personally).

Leo Wanta

reply to post by neo96


No but maybe if they employed Americans instead of outsourcing to countries that allow the factory owners to lock their employees inside so that can't escape in a fire, there would be less people draining (out of necessity, mind you) the entitlement system.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by neo96

 

No but maybe if they employed Americans instead of outsourcing to countries that allow the factory owners to lock their employees inside so that can't escape in a fire, there would be less people draining (out of necessity, mind you) the entitlement system.

That is quite true. The real question is, why is doing business in the US so untenable that corporations find necessary to offshore?

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by winterkill

 

if the interest on the debt was removed america would be debt free in less than 8 years,
20-30% of all costs are to service debt,
this does nothing to remove the principal debt,
which means taxes could be lowered by 10-15 % and in less than 10 years the debt would be gone

xploder

Where in the heck did you get this idea, because it is 100 percent wrong.

The interest rate we are paying on the debt is about the same as the interest rate set by the fed, that's why the fed is keeping it as low as it can, every percent it goes up costs us 160 billion a year. Our total interest expense is less than 300 billion a year.

First off you can't remove interest on the debt without defaulting, and that means we have to run a zero deficit, which means instant depression.

Second it would take 70 to 80 years at least to pay off the debt, if we wanted to, but we don't and we won't pay it off.

I am appalled anyone could be so ignorant to believe our debt is such a non issue. We are going to go into a depression within the next 5 years, you can bank on it.

reply to post by Kali74


Cry me a river the biggest outourcers there are in this country are those who cry for government "safety nets".

Social Securtiy,medicare,medicaid,welfare all outsource the individuals responsibility to take care of themselves, but who gives a damn make those bloody evil rich pay.

And line those corporations pockets even more since they are all corporate products which is summed up best:

Hey run to government tax those evil rich so the poor and middle class can go out and buy more corporate products.

reply to post by neo96


Why would anyone with access to good medical insurance want to utilize Medicare or Medicaid? Neither are optimal and only provide a minimum of coverage and I don't know many great doctors who accept them.

As for food stamps? The average benefit varies from state to state, but is usually around $120.00. That won't even buy drinks at most upscale restaurants.

reply to post by Hefficide

Why would anyone with access to good medical insurance want to utilize Medicare or Medicaid? Neither are optimal and only provide a minimum of coverage and I don't know many great doctors who accept them.

Why indeed, but 100 milion Amercans use them, can't pay for them, and the difference is made up by borrwing money from China,printing worthless paper, and shouted from the top of their voices medicare and medicaid are like just so totally awesome!

reply to post by neo96


Social Security benefits are optional and have to be applied for. Do you know any rich people, of retirement age, who refused to claim theirs based upon moral grounds?

When the working poor pay into the system, it's the same system that benefits everyone. I'm less offended by the disabled 90 year old woman down the street getting food stamps than I am by billionaires collecting the maximum SS payout simply because they got old enough to collect.

In fact here's another disparity. The rich guy is likelier to live long enough to collect and to collect longer by virtue of his superior access to healthcare.

reply to post by neo96

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), which has acknowledged one of its suppliers used the Bangladesh factory where more than 100 people died in a Nov. 24 blaze, worked with at least five suppliers there this year, documents found in the ruins by a labor-rights group show.

bloomberg

Why don't you tell the families of the 100 workers that were burned to death trying to break down locked doors(some were children) to cry you a river? Why don't you tell 100 unemployed factory workers here in the US to cry you a river? Then go ahead and tell them they are worthless leeches because they need foodstamps, make sure you do it in front of their hungry children too. Tell them how the CEO of Walmart deserves 56 million dollars for 3 years work because he's a job creator.

reply to post by Hefficide


There is not a living person in this country that can opt out of SS they pay regardless the common string that ties poor,middle,rich is none will ever turn down money.

The dfiference with the working poor is cradle to the grave consuming more wealth than they ever return

From welfare/foodstamps, and medicaid to SS,medicare that can not be paid for.

reply to post by Kali74


Straight to irrational "emotional" so called argument what are you going to tell over 200 million people in this country whose sole means of survival depend on what way the political winds blow in Washington DC when the bills cant be paid for.

New flash this entire nation is buring down to the ground, and people are begging for more of the same.

They scream fiscal cliff and all that rubbish, but their solution is never address the cause, but just throw more money at those manufactured problems.

I also don't give a flying fig how much a ceo makes.

reply to post by neo96


Emotional? Yes. These are emotional times. Irrational? I think you need a dictionary. The concept I'm posting really isn't that hard to get. More jobs, better pay equals less people on entitlement.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by neo96

 

Social Security benefits are optional and have to be applied for. Do you know any rich people, of retirement age, who refused to claim theirs based upon moral grounds?

Why shouldn't they? After all, they paid into the system their entire working lives and the government justified this tax in that the government was going to save it for them. Otherwise, wouldn't it just be a national ponzi scheme? Honestly, here I am in my mid 40's, and I would be perfectly willing to give up any and all claim to my SS account right now if I could stop paying in right now. All the money I've put in the last 30 years would be gone, but I'd still do better if I could save and invest that money from this point forward myself.

reply to post by neo96


You do realize that the poverty guideline for a working couple is $15,130.00 per year?

Programs using the guidelines (or percentage multiples of the guidelines — for instance, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines) in determining eligibility include Head Start, the Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Note that in general, cash public assistance programs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Security Income) do NOT use the poverty guidelines in determining eligibility. The Earned Income Tax Credit program also does NOT use the poverty guidelines to determine eligibility. For a more detailed list of programs that do and don’t use the guidelines, see the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).

The poverty guidelines (unlike the poverty thresholds) are designated by the year in which they are issued. For instance, the guidelines issued in January 2012 are designated the 2012 poverty guidelines. However, the 2012 HHS poverty guidelines only reflect price changes through calendar year 2011; accordingly, they are approximately equal to the Census Bureau poverty thresholds for calendar year 2011. (The 2011 thresholds are expected to be issued in final form in September 2012; a preliminary version of the 2011 thresholds is now available from the Census Bureau.)

This glamorous, cradle to the grave, free ride that has you so angry? It's a ridiculously marginal and low threshold of survival. The right's insistence that 49% of the country are just lazy Xbox playing drunks - who suck up all of the resources, while the top 2% heroically win the game and get stuck footing the bill for all? It's hype. Mark Cuban will drink Cristal tonight even if his tax cuts expire. And those on food stamps will still sit down to red beans and rice before they go to bed.