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

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Yep the communist manifesto is not hard to miss but the solution of more government and its "benevolence" is not hard to miss either.

How people are missing the fact, and they are facts since 1935 all that government intevention has not solved anything,but compounded those perceived "problems".

But then agian I do not condone government legislated morality.




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It isn't untenable at all. Most major corporations get tax refunds, the top 2% don't feel much in the taxes they pay and won't with the hike if it passes. It is the perfect time to be a greedy bastard in this country. The real question is why these assholes can't invest in the people and the country that made them rich in the 1st place?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I do argue that they will recieve it back at the end of the year. Furthermore, the top 10% of earners in the US pay 70% of all taxes. The top 50% (ie: the middle class and up) pay 98% of all taxes. That means half of America pays 2% of taxes at the end of the year... Jesus, reading some threads on ATS you really do walk away thinking there's a large percentage who believe that 50% paying virtually nothing are the top 50%... The huge difference between someone who gets anything they pay in taxes (and more than they paid with many of the making work pay type regulations) feeling like they don't get the fruits of their labors and someone who doesn't get their tax money returned to them and actually views it as a total loss every year is all in perspective and reality. Perspective may cause it to appear like the laborer making minimum wage is building an empire upon their backs, but the reality is there's nothing keeping that worker from bettering themselves and finding a better paying job aside from their own, self-inflicted limitations. Not so with the middle class and wealthy workers and taxes... we're wholely boned and there's nothing we can personally do about it... it isn't like I can send the IRS an "I quit... I've decided to stop working for you leeches all year and keep my money" letter.


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?


Inflation... I forgot about inflation. I wonder what a person with a worth of $1 Mil today would be worth in 1980 dollars... $750K? $500K? A handfull of magic beans and a glass of warm milk? Though I will concede the point to you in regards to home values in light of your source's claim.

Question 3 has still never been answered, just skirted and dissected for minutae. So, not to be repetitive, but...

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'm genuinely interested in an answer to this because every way I attempt to turn my head to see things in the same manner as the "increase taxes" crowd, I only see greed and envy buttressed by some sort of feeling of entitlement to claim the property of another.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I know two guys that are millionaires. Heck, I grew up with both of them Both were born into what would be considered middle to lower-middle income households.

One guy actually started selling car parts he would scavenge from junkers from the garage in his parent's house while still in high school. Soon he had enough money to open a store, eventually another, and eventually another.. and became a millionaire.

The second was actually a farmer's kid. His parents saved and he went to college and got a white collar job (engineer). So he took some of the money he made and invested it. He actually had a knack for it and over about 20 or so years he grew his little nest egg to over a million.

Now those are 2 guys who are millionaires. They made their money the old fashioned way. They earned it. Do you dispute that?

What you gotta remember for every Soros or Romney there are a buncha guys like the two above.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Indigo, so glad you showed up. You give an opportunity in a lesson in logical fallacies.


Originally posted by Indigo5
For effs sake...Mitt Romney was going to pay off the debt by cancelling big bird?
See ....your reasoning fails the smell test.


The premise, while not wholly defined by the OP is pointing out that we can confiscate all the assets of those listed and still only pay off $1 trillion of the debt. While I would prefer the OP to link to a study or written the reasoning and logic behind it, we will move forward with this.

Your response however, utilizes a "red-herring". Instead of addressing the point made by the original argument, you instead direct others to look at your points, in which they have no relevance or basis in relevancy.


The GOP likes to constantly bitch and moan about pointless spending...ya know...public television, incentives for clean energy, caring for the old and sick...you get the idea...waste of money and the reason that we are in debt?


You continue with your "red-herring" and morphed it into a "straw-man". You created your new argument and then morphed that argument into a misrepresentation of the OPs original statement and question.


If Dems made that IDIOTIC argument everytime the GOP wanted to trim a program....DOES IT PAY OFF THE DEBT? NOPE...SO KEEP IT!!! Then spending would rocket.


"Then"? It already has skyrocketed but we are not discussing the debt per se. The original question was should we "take" (I would prefer steal as that is what it would be; stealing, theft, legal plunder) the 1% (undefined but we all have a pretty clear picture), and pay off the debt. Keep that red-herring going though Indigo.

I stand to figure that the reasoning for your red-herring, the slight-of-hand you are performing is because you either honestly believe we have a "revenue" problem. Not enough tax-receipts to cover valid functions of government? Am I close?

The thing is, we have plenty of tax-receipts. Nearly all the states have plenty of tax-receipts. None of them have a revenue problem.

To illustrate this: California, in 2011 had approximately $116,000,000,000 in tax revenue. Are you saying that they didn't have enough money? Yet spending was at $434,000,000,000 and increasing at a far greater pace than taxes can keep up. It is a spending problem.

I am in agreement that tax-loopholes, subsidies (all, not just selective we hate oil company subsidies) and bailouts should be discontinued.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Never said that it was glamorous people need to wake up to they can provide for themselves far better than they get from a government pittance.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
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 disagree to a point with you here, neo. Lower middle class may belong in there, but the real middle class do not. Despite Obama's promises that my taxes would not go up, as I am a head of household making less than $250,000/year, my taxes have increased dramatically every year he has been in office. I reached the unenviable platform some years ago where I stopped breaking even and started getting hosed. That situation has increased in severity annually to the point where I now find myself having to actively budget at tax time to pay a bill in excess of that which is thefted from each of my paychecks every 2 weeks. The irony of being rolled, mugged, and then later recieving a bill from the muggers because the amount in my wallet was insufficient for them to purchase more flashy baubble-like gifts for their constituents.

The middle class, by and large, are right up there alongside the millionares in terms of being in the government's crosshairs. Afterall, once they have raised taxes on the top 2%, their next logical target will be the next 2%, followed by the next, followed by the next. Eventually we will see a point in which you have to decide: Either work and be productive so you can barely make ends meet after the government has left you in the gutter, or stop working and allow the government to care for you.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


The system was fine until politicians were allowed to write their own loopholes through it, and whose fault is that? Yep, OURS.

By not holding the government accountable (THAT was our duty in this whole thing, and we neglected it), by not prosecuting politicians for their irresponsible actions, by not FORCING these elected people to do what it is their job to do (i.e. REPRESENT us, not dictate TO us), We the people are the ones ultimately responsible for this entire mess.

Fire them all and start over with the original constitution and bill of rights (sans the loopholes), and make the new elected officials (who would not be allowed to become millionaires from their offices, or re-interpret the obvious meanings of the laws to their own ends) stick to the damned thing!



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Feel free to disagree never said anyone ever had to agree when I read this it solidified that belief


Millions of workers will see their take-home pay rise during 2011 because the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 provides a two percentage point payroll tax cut for employees, reducing their Social Security tax withholding rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent of wages paid. This reduced Social Security withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits.


www.irs.gov...

Payroll taxes pay for SS,medicare

This reduced Social Security withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits.

The poor and middle class contributions were reduced, and yet has no effect on benefits received thus in my opinion get more out than return.

Note this was 2 years ago, and since that payroll tax cut spending has ballooned, and here we are the middle class tax cuts stay in place which means the difference is only going to be made up by those evil rich.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It isn't untenable at all. Most major corporations get tax refunds, the top 2% don't feel much in the taxes they pay and won't with the hike if it passes. It is the perfect time to be a greedy bastard in this country. The real question is why these assholes can't invest in the people and the country that made them rich in the 1st place?


How do you know that the 2% won't feel it. That's pretty ignorant and condescending postition. A guy makes 250K because he started a small business: he probably has business loans, has put in 80 hour weeks to get to that point, by the time he gets there, the kids are ready for university and they don't qualify for anything because they are the "evil rich." How do you know he won't feel the effects? Or is this some assumption without any basis in fact?

In order to get to 250K a year, the vast majority have to bust their humps. It takes years to get to that level. Years of education, 80+ hour work weeks, crappy pay and even crappier hours to build that business or that skill or that reputation or to climb that ladder, time away from family, working through holidays, missing family events, loans, risk, dedication, and a hell of a lot of work and after all of that effort people just hate him and want to take away what he earned. Why is he greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of all of that effort? What is more greedy, the guy who made that money or the guy who didn't work for it wanting to take it? I've countless times put in 10,12, 36 hour days whereas many others disappear when the clock strikes 5. It is ironic that those who are completely unwilling ot put in that much effort, only want to work 40 hour weeks, don't want to get more than a highschool diploma, want every holiday off, demand paid vacations, and want no responsability beyond the bare minimum for that paycheck get upset that there are people who are more successful than they. They never imagine that there are very solid and concrete reasons why their minimal effort produces minimal results.

As for corporations going offshore, the answer was taxation and regulation. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Signapore has one of the lowest. Guess where so many corporations are going and guess which of the two countries is having a boom economy?

Assholes can't invest in the country that made them rich in the first place? Assholes like that BUILT the country. In addition, redistribution of their hard earned money to those who cannot or will not be as successful is not "investing in the country" it is a continuation of the problem The war on poverty and the great society have created more poverty, not solved it.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



Originally posted by burdman30ott6

I do argue that they will recieve it back at the end of the year. Furthermore, the top 10% of earners in the US pay 70% of all taxes. The top 50% (ie: the middle class and up) pay 98% of all taxes. That means half of America pays 2% of taxes at the end of the year.


Now you know full well that this spin addresses only FICA and not actual taxation. Everybody pays taxes. The myth that the bottom 49% do not is just that. A myth. I have been both wealthy and poor during my life and don't ever recall getting an ad velorum or sales tax refund check. Wealthier people pay property taxes, but also get write-offs on their property - whereas renters ( which most of the poor are ) get no credits for being renters/


Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Perspective may cause it to appear like the laborer making minimum wage is building an empire upon their backs, but the reality is there's nothing keeping that worker from bettering themselves and finding a better paying job aside from their own, self-inflicted limitations.


In some cases this is true. In others not so. There is an implication to this logic that only winners win and only losers lose... that it was all fair at the beginning and self-determination was the only factor. These are patently false assumptions. For some, the starting line is way ahead of where others begin their race at. And some are born without the ability to run the race as well, or at all. We all love to read those stories about self-made people who overcame the odds and has vast success despite of diversity. But the reason we love those stories is their rareness.


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'm genuinely interested in an answer to this because every way I attempt to turn my head to see things in the same manner as the "increase taxes" crowd, I only see greed and envy buttressed by some sort of feeling of entitlement to claim the property of another.


I make no argument against the notion that success and determination should be rewarded. A guy who works 60 hours a week should be more prosperous than his co-worker who only works 30 hours does. The problem I have is when the concept of equity ( fairness ) becomes a one sided blade.

One cannot say "I worked harder and earned my position, therefore it's fair that I make 100 million per year, where others, who also work, just as often, can make as little as $11,000.00 per year" and then turn around and say "Don't play the 'fair' card on me!" when it comes to taxes. The whole argument is very disingenuous. It's like an adult couple kicking their infant out of the house for not pulling his own weight and paying 1/3 of the bills. Cherry picked positions always possess this flaw.

The thing that strikes me the most about the new "right" is that they don't understand the machine and the way it works. Guess what happens when Rush Limbaugh gets his dream and all social programs and the minimum wage are abolished?

The entire economy dies. The rich suffer because their upstream of income is cut off at the source.

This reality almost, almost makes me wish that the right could have their way. If so many people wouldn't perish in the process of it, I'd honestly shut my mouth and just sit back and watch as the whole darned thing came crashing down and the greediest of the greedy were left saying "Wait... why didn't my profit margins grow at the usual 13.8% this month?"

The propagandists have done an excellent job here. They've convinced the middle to turn against the bottom - and actually play bodyguard for them. It's amazing to behold. When you get to the hen house... remember, The fox with the yolk running down his face didn't get your eggs. Must have been the sheep over there that did.



edit on 12/7/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I don't believe I have ever agreed with a post more than I do with your one above.

People who do not work for their lifestyle have no right (in my opinion) to demand that those that do, pay more so that the same can be afforded to them.

Redistribution of wealth can only be done ONCE. After that, where is the incentive for those that create the wealth, to continue creating it if it is only going to be taken away and given to others?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 





Inflation... I forgot about inflation. I wonder what a person with a worth of $1 Mil today would be worth in 1980 dollars... $750K? $500K?


360,000 dollars in 1980 has over 1 million todays dollars.

www.usinflationcalculator.com...
edit on 7-12-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



360,000 dollars in 1980 has over 1 million todays dollars.


Well, if that's the case, then I'm pretty much worthless already.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Payroll taxes pay for SS,medicare

This reduced Social Security withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits.

The poor and middle class contributions were reduced, and yet has no effect on benefits received thus in my opinion get more out than return.

Note this was 2 years ago, and since that payroll tax cut spending has ballooned, and here we are the middle class tax cuts stay in place which means the difference is only going to be made up by those evil rich.


Currently, only the first $110,000 income is taxed for Social Security and that 2% reduction applied to all payers, regardless of total income. Benefits are only restricted by wage income before reaching full eligibility age and are unrestricted after that. This essentially means EVERYBODY starts to collect their checks when they reach the eligible age, regardless of wealth, income, etc. Everyone's contributions have been reduced and nobody's benefits have been effected.

I stand by the idea that the very nature of SS is messed up, but it is messed up because you've got people who scarcely worked a day in their lives who claim full benefits simply upon reaching full eligibility age. I don't believe simply surviving to your late 60s alone should qualify you for a weekly government check. That said, neither do I believe the workers who have paid into the system for 40 years+ should be left twisting on the line.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I believe Monty can help us all make up our minds on this one.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
The thing that strikes me the most about the new "right" is that they don't understand the machine and the way it works. Guess what happens when Rush Limbaugh gets his dream and all social programs and the minimum wage are abolished?

The entire economy dies. The rich suffer because their upstream of income is cut off at the source.


I have a birthday pizza party I need to get to, so I will argue the rest of your post later tonight, but I want to make a comment on the above quoted statement. The rich will suffer and die because their less of their own money would be taken from them and redistributed before a portion of it found its way back to them? Really? Seems to me that if I have a box containing 12 apples and someone at work takes 6 of them, later passing them out to coworkers and somehow managing to place 1 of the apples on my desk I have a total of 7 apples... Yet, if I had managed to keep all 12 of my apples, I'd have had 12. 12>7 by virtually all forms of math.

Now, forget the above for a moment and look at this through the eyes of a global economy. If the US had the ability to be more competitive (which it would have if we had:
A. More impetus for people to work rather than claim entitlements
B. Elimination of the Union pyramid scheme (which mostly makes union bosses and corrupt leaders wealthy while keeping workers at the same level they'd be at given free market competition)
C. Performance/production based wages)
then foreign corporations alongside domestic corporations would turn the US back into a producer rather than a mere service provider/consumer based economy. That would equate to wealth ENTERING the USA rather than stagnating or leaving the USA. Problem solved.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Seems to me that if I have a box containing 12 apples and someone at work takes 6 of them, later passing them out to coworkers and somehow managing to place 1 of the apples on my desk I have a total of 7 apples... Yet, if I had managed to keep all 12 of my apples, I'd have had 12. 12>7 by virtually all forms of math.


Apples and oranges. You see the top earners don't have apples. They have orange orchards. When they want an orange, they ring a bell and a servant goes out, past the gardening crew, who keep the orange trees alive and healthy, and picks the "job creator" his orange.

In your scenario only the orchard owner eats. Once his staff dies of starvation? His orchards wither and decay.

At that point the rich man then learns how many orange trees he, himself, really can work to keep alive - and his actual wealth and productivity.


Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Now, forget the above for a moment and look at this through the eyes of a global economy. If the US had the ability to be more competitive (which it would have if we had:
A. More impetus for people to work rather than claim entitlements
B. Elimination of the Union pyramid scheme (which mostly makes union bosses and corrupt leaders wealthy while keeping workers at the same level they'd be at given free market competition)
C. Performance/production based wages)
then foreign corporations alongside domestic corporations would turn the US back into a producer rather than a mere service provider/consumer based economy. That would equate to wealth ENTERING the USA rather than stagnating or leaving the USA. Problem solved.


I agree with everything above.


My caveats would be protections for children, the disabled, and the elderly be kept in place - actually augmented and streamlined so that more benefits went to them without all of the bureaucratic overhead. And that a livable minimum wage be retained.

ETA: Enjoy the birthday pizza party! If it's at that place with the mouse and all the noise? They do sell beer.
edit on 12/7/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
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.

That's not entirely true... There are at least two classes of people who can opt out of paying Social Security, The flip side is..they can never collect it, as I understand it. So, that choice better be a good one.

Clergymen can opt themselves out for Religious Reasons. Also, some people in Galveston Texas have been off Social Security and into a Private version of it since clear back in 1981. It's apparently worked well...and what Bush had in mind to suggest for others. Unfortunately, merely utter the word 'Private' in the same breath as Social Security and a predictable segment goes absolutely flipping out insane. So....We;'ll watch the entire system crash and burn rather than fix it as the most likely outcome.

How Privatized Social Security Works in Galveston

There are solutions to this. The solutions to the 16 Trillion abyss just require FAST movement, creative intelligence and determination to FIX it and not worry about who got credit for what and why. All qualities I don't see in Congress or Washington in general...Red or Blue. We're doomed in that sense.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by winterkill
So if we took all of the money from
- The Rich
- The Corps
- The sporting events
- Every source of income in America,

We could pay off 1 Trillion dollars of the Debt.

Only 15 more to go.

Define hooped.


Huh?

How the hell do you do math? The Rockefeller family ALONE has a net worth substantially over $1 Trillion...they are the piss ants of the global bankers.

Christ only knows how many trillions upon trillions the Rothschild's, Morgan's, and Warburgs are worth.

Remember..we don't have to pay off the whole damn thing overnight....but 50% downstroke would be a FANTASTIC start and the only tangible fallout I can discern is that those pricks won't be able to fund or create any more World Wars.

Seems like a good deal to me.

Besides...since those 5th generation silver-spooners NONE of whom actually had to become wealthy THEMSELVES are such big fans of Social Darwinism it will be provide an EXCELLENT experiment in establishing if they really just that much "better and smarter" than the rest of us. We'll just drop them off in the Yukon with nothing but the clothes on their back and then if they are worth billions or trillions again in a decade or two...then we will no for a fact that they really ARE just that damn good.

However, I personally predict that every single one of the plutocrats will be dead within 72 hours....even if they are given some fantastic expedition grade equipment and clothing to start out with.





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join