|
The small companies that account for about half of national employment
It's a little ridiculous you say that it's mythical then talk about what industries are connected to it imo maybe that was a typo
crony capitalism isnt real capitalism and thats what got us into this mess
Last edit: 2011-08-20 14:52:10
I hope you know that these small business use government services just as much and also paying more taxes (percentage wise ofcourse). You think they don't use fire, police, defense, research spending from the government? Why just last month I reviewed 20 SBIRs for "small business" asking for government funds. None of these services appear magically without cost.
Yes the government could reduce spending, but it will result in an even slower recovery. You don't impose austerity measures in the middle of a recession, you do it when the private job market is expanding rapidly and you definitely should not reduce taxes on the rich. And you should never ever cut entitlements, in recession or out of it. The government needs to stimulate the economy not strangle it.
|
Don't see why people think massive cuts will save an economy it actually will hurt it, look at the UK massive cuts 0% growth. People want both side of the cake but you can't have it, either you suffer now and cut or you suffer later and cut when the econ is doing better.
|
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but aren't the richest income brackets in America paying a lower percentage of income tax than everyone else? I haven't researched it thoroughly so I could be wrong. But if that first statement is true, how could it be a bad thing for the richest income bracket to pay the same as everyone else? Isn't that simple equality? (Agree or contradict, I wouldn't mind hearing some opinions re: this)
|
On August 20 2011 15:04 redviper wrote:
Yes the government could reduce spending, but it will result in an even slower recovery. You don't impose austerity measures in the middle of a recession, you do it when the private job market is expanding rapidly and you definitely should not reduce taxes on the rich. And you should never ever cut entitlements, in recession or out of it. The government needs to stimulate the economy not strangle it.
Problem is that the time to reduce the deficit was when the economy was going well, and that was between, say, 2003-2007. Instead, there was increased spending and tax cuts.
No matter what the US does, it is going to hurt. Either continue racking debt, and possibly shake the faith that the world's financial system places in the US economy, or slash spending, and further damage the US economy.
There is no "right" thing to do, either way there will be unpleasant consequences.
|
On August 20 2011 15:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Millionaires don't need handouts - this isn't how the economy has ever worked, no major industry survives without significant help from the government, which is a problem but higher taxes isn't going to fix it
Military cuts are a fantasy unfortunately, not with China around
I also don't know how it doesn't make any sense since the number one promise from the president and men like warren buffett is that taxes on the middle class simply won't be increased
impossible to bring the deficit to bush 2 average levels and keep increasing spending without tapping the huge pool of middle class taxpayers
I'm confused on your followup here. Are you saying we should or should not impart further taxes on the middle class? I think you are saying "yes, it is needed to help solve the problem". Ok, I disagree, as I believe that the lower and middle class don't have much more left to give - but that is part of the argument.
So what about the upper class that is paying proportionally less? Are you saying that is part of the solution too or not? You seem to be arguing that the wider problem needs to be approached from multiple angles, but you seem to be arguing that with people who are saying the same thing and agreeing with much of what you are saying.
As for the increasing spending...I think that's essentially the root of the issue, isn't it.
|
On August 20 2011 15:42 ControlMonkey wrote:
Problem is that the time to reduce the deficit was when the economy was going well, and that was between, say, 2003-2007. Instead, there was increased spending and tax cuts.
No matter what the US does, it is going to hurt. Either continue racking debt, and possibly shake the faith that the world's financial system places in the US economy, or slash spending, and further damage the US economy.
There is no "right" thing to do, either way there will be unpleasant consequences.
I think this is well said. To begin solving this problem will require some significant sacrifice. The trick is in sharing equally in that sacrifice. Extremely difficult - unfortunately no magic bullets.
|
Couldn't you make the tax rate on the rich equal to that on the rest of the population currently is (or progressively higher) and then lower tax rates for lower wage earners (i.e, most of the rest of the population) to alleviate the burden the recession is putting on (while increasing available money to buy goods, further helping the economy)? And wouldn't that lower labor costs which benefits job creation? (hint - there is no evidence that richer people having less tax means more jobs are made, they follow supply and demand and pocket the difference if they're given tax breaks)
|
On August 20 2011 15:56 peelmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 15:42 ControlMonkey wrote:
Problem is that the time to reduce the deficit was when the economy was going well, and that was between, say, 2003-2007. Instead, there was increased spending and tax cuts.
No matter what the US does, it is going to hurt. Either continue racking debt, and possibly shake the faith that the world's financial system places in the US economy, or slash spending, and further damage the US economy.
There is no "right" thing to do, either way there will be unpleasant consequences. I think this is well said. To begin solving this problem will require some significant sacrifice. The trick is in sharing equally in that sacrifice. Extremely difficult - unfortunately no magic bullets.
unfortunately people don't talk about how to cut they just talk about we must cut. Well what would we cut? we like these things then we should raise revue to pay for it. You think SS is bloated reform how it operates. But there has to be honest effort to try, and to just say well the rich run the economy taxing them in any form even if it's on their personal income to which there is no guarantee that they would use to significantly stimulate the economy, at a slightly high % of gdp debt time in the us, while in 2 1/2th wars to levels that are no were near the highest historically for their income bracket. In context doesn't seem like they are giving as much as they could, that's the thing about it taxes like tithing is not just saying i gave more because i made more but going i could live without my proshe and give a little bit more, it's called sacrifice for a reason.
|
i am totally behind warren on this one. there's really no reason for this not to happen. if anybody responds to this using the word socialism they should know they are retards who don't want to make progress. Besides, this plan would generate 700 billion over 10 years. The bottom 50% of America collectively posses about twice that. So, would you rather tax billionaires/ millionaires like they have the money for once in American history or rob the poor class blind?
|
The fact that his proposal won't fix all the deficit problem isn't even the issue. I don't care if the thing can fix only 5% or even 2% of the deficit problem, if it CAN fix the problem and it is with in our reach to do so, we should do it.
No single proposal is going to magically "fix the problem". Most of the times problems are fixed by squeezing in resources little at a time, like sneaking in one drones once in awhile, but the effects add up.
So really don't try to pull the "omg it does not fix the thing" card because as long as it can fix a little part of it, and is reasonable, we should do it.
|
From what I understand Buffets overarching point is that we should be taxing the rich in order help lower the deficit. While republicans claim that taxes on the rich will hinder the economy, because higher taxes don't lead to investment. What Buffet, as well as many others who have posted fail to acknowledge, is that republicans are referring to people with an income of over 200k a year. Not the uber-rich, 8,000 Americans that make over 10 million annually. Instead, republicans are referencing the 6 million Americans that hold a spot in the top 2 percent of income. THAT group of Americans is who republicans claim will hold back investments if taxes are raised, not Buffet and is billionaire friends. I can tell you for a fact that higher taxes on this portion of the U.S deters investment because my father is one of these people. His income sits at roughly 300k yearly, and he owns a small business. He, as well as other small business owners are extremely deterred from investment and expansion with the raise in taxes, and these small business owners make up most of our economy.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 20 2011 17:33 D0N32 wrote:
From what I understand Buffets overarching point is that we should be taxing the rich in order help lower the deficit. While republicans claim that taxes on the rich will hinder the economy, because higher taxes don't lead to investment. What Buffet, as well as many others who have posted fail to acknowledge, is that republicans are referring to people with an income of over 200k a year. Not the uber-rich, 8,000 Americans that make over 10 million annually. Instead, republicans are referencing the 6 million Americans that hold a spot in the top 2 percent of income. THAT group of Americans is who republicans claim will hold back investments if taxes are raised, not Buffet and is billionaire friends. I can tell you for a fact that higher taxes on this portion of the U.S deters investment because my father is one of these people. His income sits at roughly 300k yearly, and he owns a small business. He, as well as other small business owners are extremely deterred from investment and expansion with the raise in taxes, and these small business owners make up most of our economy.
So have lower taxes on people between 200-500k income and massively increased taxes for people who earn more than a million?
|
On August 20 2011 17:33 D0N32 wrote:
From what I understand Buffets overarching point is that we should be taxing the rich in order help lower the deficit. While republicans claim that taxes on the rich will hinder the economy, because higher taxes don't lead to investment. What Buffet, as well as many others who have posted fail to acknowledge, is that republicans are referring to people with an income of over 200k a year. Not the uber-rich, 8,000 Americans that make over 10 million annually. Instead, republicans are referencing the 6 million Americans that hold a spot in the top 2 percent of income. THAT group of Americans is who republicans claim will hold back investments if taxes are raised, not Buffet and is billionaire friends. I can tell you for a fact that higher taxes on this portion of the U.S deters investment because my father is one of these people. His income sits at roughly 300k yearly, and he owns a small business. He, as well as other small business owners are extremely deterred from investment and expansion with the raise in taxes, and these small business owners make up most of our economy.
Warren Buffet does explicitly mention which taxes he means. It is not the same sort of taxes that apply to a small business owner. Your father does not have his income out of capital gains with the stupidly low taxes Warren Buffet enjoys.
The current situation is simply unfair and also stupid, because as Warren Buffet explains, he and his super-rich investment colleagues will go about their business the same way, no matter what the taxes are. Profit for them means something else than for a small business owner who has to pay for his employees and machinery and stuff. I guess small business owners would actually more likely create jobs, if they had more money, yet they are taxed heavier than super-rich.
|
As an outsider, watching Americans debate their economy is getting painful.
Should you raise taxes or cut spending? You're like the crew of a sinking boat debating wether you should fix the leak or pump out the water.
You need to do both. And you need to stop bickering about it and just do it before the boat sinks.
|
On August 20 2011 11:41 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 11:34 Adila wrote:On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote:
Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real. In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles? I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians. Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
|
On August 20 2011 01:48 Serejai wrote:
This thread is a perfect example of why I have little faith in humanity these days. I couldn't even wade through all the stupid comments on the first page, let alone the following 30.
Some of you could really stand to be better educated on this subject before posting your opinions as facts.
A lot of people could stand to actually read the article in question instead of making responses based on assumptions.
On August 20 2011 17:39 Whitewing wrote:
So have lower taxes on people between 200-500k income and massively increased taxes for people who earn more than a million?
No. Maybe you should read the damn article.
|
On August 20 2011 15:42 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 15:04 redviper wrote:
Yes the government could reduce spending, but it will result in an even slower recovery. You don't impose austerity measures in the middle of a recession, you do it when the private job market is expanding rapidly and you definitely should not reduce taxes on the rich. And you should never ever cut entitlements, in recession or out of it. The government needs to stimulate the economy not strangle it. Problem is that the time to reduce the deficit was when the economy was going well, and that was between, say, 2003-2007. Instead, there was increased spending and tax cuts. No matter what the US does, it is going to hurt. Either continue racking debt, and possibly shake the faith that the world's financial system places in the US economy, or slash spending, and further damage the US economy. There is no "right" thing to do, either way there will be unpleasant consequences.
I know that the recent coverage on the huge deficit has everyone worried but realistically what does it mean?
The US has to pay a certain amount each yeah for debt servicing. They do this by borrowing more (or taxing more). Thats it. Thats the extent of the deficit problem.
Do you think other countries (or foundations) will stop buying treasury bonds? US treasuries are the safest, most backed up long term investment.
People are also afraid that somehow china will call in the debt. That too will never happen because in a symbiotic relationship between countries, screwing your partner is a good way to create bandwagoning against yourself.
Is there a problem with the huge national debt? Yes. Is it a problem that needs to be addressed today or even in the next decade? Hell no.
The big problems facing the US are not related to the debt or to the deficit. Our population is getting older, our education system is encouraging rather than wiping out inequality, our poor are feeling more and more disillusioned with the system, and our young people think that playing football (and not even real football) is better than getting a degree. We pay our football coaches millions and our professors pennies. We are alienating our school teachers by treating them like shit. We are using draconian policies to curb freedom of speech, expression and communication. And we seem to think that fighting wars is super duper cool, so we keep starting a new one every few years.
But lets look at the so called nightmare scenario - that the US government will keep on behaving like untrained monkeys and not raise the debt ceiling forcing the treasury to default. So what? International loan interest rates will go high for a bit, until the government raises the debt ceiling and investors will come flocking debt. Do you think IMF can impose douchy policies on the US like it does on the rest of the world? Do you think suddenly the world bank will stop using US money?
|
On August 20 2011 18:37 ixi.genocide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 11:41 Elegy wrote:On August 20 2011 11:34 Adila wrote:On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote:
Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real. In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles? I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians. Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right. The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
|
On August 21 2011 00:02 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 18:37 ixi.genocide wrote:On August 20 2011 11:41 Elegy wrote:On August 20 2011 11:34 Adila wrote:On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote:
Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real. In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles? I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians. Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right. The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs. Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person. But how and where are highways in the constitution?
They aren't, Congress is only given the power to create "post roads" for the purpose of mail delivery.
|
I don't see why we have such a collective boner for a document over 200 years old, (much less another one 2000 years old). There are plenty of aspects of modern life that the founding fathers could have never fathomed. I'm sure they were all pretty swell guys and all, (as swell as men who felt that all white christian land-owning males were created equal can be), but just because George Washington didn't mention an issue in the 1700s doesn't mean it should be unconstitutional today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
