Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The trick is to lower spending, not increase taxes. That's what worked in the 1990's.>> No, we are in this jam because of the Bush-Cheney war. Remember that war? The one that was supposed to be funded with oil revenues? It hasn't worked out quite that way. So now SOMEBODY has to pay for the damned thing. I think the war has been massively bungled. I also know that the tax burden of the rich has been reduced under Bush. But I don't really care. I am still willing to see my taxes increased to pay off the damned war so that my kids don't have to.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Well I'mnot willing to pay more taxes. I can barely pay the taxes I owe as it is.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But I don't really care. I am still willing to see my taxes increased to pay off the damned war so that my kids don't have to.<< Whoa! Let's not get crazy. What kind of American are you?!? Trying to take personal responsibility for what your government has done. Making sacrifices for your country. It's not 1943, RT. Go out, buy your Hummer. Somehow, this will all work itself out. The U.S. is number 1 after all, so we don't really need to do anything. U.S.A! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
Originally Posted By X-san ***Grow up people.*** This is one of those times I wish Jonvn were still around, to point out the fact that it's incredibly idiotic for people who are not rich (but hope to be, someday) to advocate benefits to help those who ARE rich. Just sayin.
Originally Posted By X-san ***I'm not among the wealthy by the way*** Which makes you just another one of those fools who buys into the stupid idea that you should support "sparing the rich", because more than likely you imagine yourself getting there someday. Otherwise, why would you say such a thing to your own detriment (sparing the rich means cutting into YOUR benefits and YOUR tax burden, you understand that right?)?
Originally Posted By DAR But DVC is right, it's not the megawealthy that get punished, for them paying taxes is like a drop in the bucket. It is the small business owner, or perhaps the doctor who worked his or her rear off just to finally make it where they are. And then we want to punish these people for their hard work, that's not right.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Well I'mnot willing to pay more taxes. I can barely pay the taxes I owe as it is.*** Unfortunately, whether you are willing or not is absolutely irrelevant. I'm not willing to pay my taxes either. Not one fudging penny. For pete's sake, I live in another country! I do not enjoy ONE SINGLE BENEFIT of the tax dollars I pay to America. And yet, I am forced to pay. Or be a criminal. C'est la vie. Deal with it.
Originally Posted By X-san **And then we want to punish these people for their hard work, that's not right.** It's not punishment. It's equity. Plain and simple (except for my case, where I'm getting completely screwed and if my nationality was ANYTHING other than American I wouldn't have this problem since America is the only country that will pursue you to the ends of the earth and until you are dead to collect their money...such is the cost of "freedom", I suppose).
Originally Posted By utahjosh Let's stick to capitalism and stay away from socialism. Man was CREATED equal, it's not the Government's role to force us to stay economically equal.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Actually when you boil down everything Obama is saying, do the math, it comes out to be an increase for any individual that makes over 31,000 ish. > How did you come to that figure? What Obama has advocated is restoring the tax rates on those making over 200 or 250K back to where they were in the 90's. The rich didn't suffer in the 90's; in fact, both they and the economy in general did just fine, thank you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I'm all for taxes going up, but I think this tas the rich thing is stupid, many of them will just get out of it. Raise taxes on almost everyone. (Say 2% on every taxbracket, those who don't pay now can keep on not paying.) > I'd go the opposite. I'd be in favor of a drop for most people IF the loopholes were closed. That's what the 1986 tax act (agreed to by Reagan and a Dem. congress) was supposed to do, and succeeded partially. But over the last 22 years, a lot of the complexity and loopholes have crept back in (or in the case of loopholes were intentionally inserted back in.) I'd be in favor of a revenue-neutral (or revenue raising, since we need that now) rehauling of the tax code that really had some teeth in terms of closing the loopholes and brought some real equity to the process. Because as MrsElderP alludes to, too many people now gain the system and pay almost nothing. Most people, I think, favor this idea of tax simplification with the guarantee that everyone pays his fair share. But like "energy independence" it seems to be one of those ideas everyone's for but never seems to get done - too many entrenched interests keeping it from getting done.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Obama will be worse for the economy. How is it possible otherwise? Someone explain how." That's an easy one. Obama doesn't subscribe to the neo-con theory od "Deficit Spending" economics. "Deficit Spending" ecominics causes inflation, and devaluation of the Dollar. Combine that with the results of deregulation the banking industry, the outsourcing of our labor force, and spiraling energy costs and we are in the midst of a perfect storm.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Which makes you just another one of those fools who buys into the stupid idea that you should support "sparing the rich", because more than likely you imagine yourself getting there someday. >>> Yes thank you for calling me more names and more insults. Are most liberals like you? You certainly are a shining example of the left if ever there was one...or maybe it's just you. Why is it that you cannot discuss anything without insulting and calling names? Are you THAT insecure about yourself? I've called you out on this a few times now and you avoid the question. What's the problem with all the personal anguish?
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP Dabob2--you and I fundamentally agree I think. Overall, the governement needs more money, and it needs it for paying down the national debt, not for starting new programs. If the Feds want to start new programs (national healthcare maybe) they need even more than that. I would LOVE for the tax code to get heavily simplified, but as you say every loop hole benifits someone w/a paid lobbiest somewhere and they are very hard to close. One of the first I'd close is one I take: the tax deduction for interest on mortgages. I'd do that one, just so everyone suffers, ahem, sacrifies, togther, and it only benifits those well off enough to buy a house. We'd need to keep going after that, go very far after that, but that's where I'd start.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost But yes, let's tax the rich, they have no right to make sooooo much more money that I do. I mean heck, it isn't fait that they spent 10 years in medical school, an opportunity that I didn't have, and they worked 2 jobs while in med shcool to get through,while I was drinking beer at the bar with my buddies. Tax the rich, redistribute the wealth! Why should they be able to shop at Nordstrom while I barely make it at Walmart? IT'S NOT FAIR!!! WAAAA BOO HOO... TAX THEM TAX THEM TAX THEM!!! And while we're at it let's tax the plumber who worked hard to build his own business and like the smallbusiness owners across the country, employs most of the working class! Get his money too, its not fair!!! Grow up people.<<< I don't think that I want to tax the "rich" more than I get taxed, I just want it to be equitable. For example, if I make 50K a year and I have to pay 25% in tax that equals...$12500.00. Leaving me with $37500.00 to live on. If I made $100000 and taxed at 35% that would equal $35000.00 leaving me with $65000.00 to live on. Given the choice which one would I choose. It's a no brain'r. It hurts someone with a lot of income less to pay 35% then it does for me to pay 25%. Why is that so hard to understand. The percentage game is the one being used by Oil Companies now. They say that there N/P is only 9%. If you take 9% of a billion dollars and compare it to 9% of a half billion, the real dollar income is hugely different without any added effort. Percentages mean nothing...it is real money that counts. And where is it written that you cannot separate business income from personal income. A small business man does not have to be taxed as much as a windfall profit executive, making bonuses out of our hardships.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Hello, where does equity come into it? No offense,but the guy making mare probably worked a lot harder or made better decisions earlier in life. The people who inherit family money or fall into wealth by accident is extremely small contrary to popular belief. The equity is in harder work (be that college or otherwise) should get greater reward. Anything else.....is socialism. We all see how THAT worked out in the 80's for the Soviets. Equity can ONLY be defined as you get what you work for. Any other system that redistributes earnings is flawed, or isn't capitalism.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The people who inherit family money or fall into wealth by accident is extremely small contrary to popular belief. >> Small numbers of people, but they hold 99% of the wealth.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad The 150,000 + to say 500,000'ish taxable income (be it W-2 or especially 1099) is who repeatedly gets screwed time after time after time when it comes to taxes. It's that simple.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad No this is not true at all. But lets say it is... are you entitled to some of their money? And if so, how? What did YOU do to earn it?
