|
On September 27 2011 08:33 Tien wrote:
You can't afford what you can't afford.
Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for more expenses does nothing but mortgage the future of the country.
Are you trolling? Because your argument assumes that no government can ever reach a balanced budget. Canada had balanced budgets under Chretien's and Martin's governments. Basically, here's your argument.
Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for roads does nothing but mortgage the future of the country.
Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for police services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country
Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for fire inspection services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country
Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for a federal military does nothing but mortgage the future of the country.
Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for government administrator salaries does nothing but mortgage the future of the country
There's no limit to your argument, only that government services must always be cut. You're adding nothing but an anarchist viewpoint that government must be abolished.
|
On September 27 2011 08:47 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 08:33 Tien wrote:
You can't afford what you can't afford.
Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for more expenses does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Are you trolling? Because your argument assumes that no government can ever reach a balanced budget. Canada had balanced budgets under Chretien's and Martin's governments. Basically, here's your argument. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for roads does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for police services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for fire inspection services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for a federal military does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for government administrator salaries does nothing but mortgage the future of the country There's no limit to your argument, only that government services must always be cut. You're adding nothing but an anarchist viewpoint that government must be abolished.
not really... maybe he means that it only applies to a given situation.
since we're already in debt both our government and on average personally, he says that printing/borrowing/taxing more only puts us further in debt as peopel in favor of repaying the government debt.
if the government spends less then it doesn't "mortgage our future"
|
On September 27 2011 08:55 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 08:47 DetriusXii wrote:On September 27 2011 08:33 Tien wrote:
You can't afford what you can't afford.
Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for more expenses does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Are you trolling? Because your argument assumes that no government can ever reach a balanced budget. Canada had balanced budgets under Chretien's and Martin's governments. Basically, here's your argument. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for roads does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for police services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for fire inspection services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for a federal military does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for government administrator salaries does nothing but mortgage the future of the country There's no limit to your argument, only that government services must always be cut. You're adding nothing but an anarchist viewpoint that government must be abolished. not really... maybe he means that it only applies to a given situation. since we're already in debt both our government and on average personally, he says that printing/borrowing/taxing more only puts us further in debt as peopel in favor of repaying the government debt. if the government spends less then it doesn't "mortgage our future"
And having a higher marginal tax rate and getting rid of estate taxes could work to reduce the deficit. I fail to see how taxing more can put people into debt.
|
On September 27 2011 05:11 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 04:57 Tien wrote:
Why doesn't the government spend less instead of asking for more money? Really? Because the people want certain things paid for; infrastructure, energy, a judicial system, a political system, military defenses, social security, unemployment help, food stamps for the most impoverished people, law enforcement, wildlife conservation, on and on the list goes. Unless someone's storing the magical formula that will make the governing of 350M people more efficient than it is currently, reducing spending is asking people to give these things up.
I'm no doctor, but for some reason when reading this post, I thought of the reasons we amputate limbs. It's not because we don't need those limbs anymore, but because if they are not amputated, the problems will likely progress and lead to our death. Something to think about.
|
On September 27 2011 09:14 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 08:55 Kiarip wrote:On September 27 2011 08:47 DetriusXii wrote:On September 27 2011 08:33 Tien wrote:
You can't afford what you can't afford.
Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for more expenses does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Are you trolling? Because your argument assumes that no government can ever reach a balanced budget. Canada had balanced budgets under Chretien's and Martin's governments. Basically, here's your argument. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for roads does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for police services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for fire inspection services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for a federal military does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for government administrator salaries does nothing but mortgage the future of the country There's no limit to your argument, only that government services must always be cut. You're adding nothing but an anarchist viewpoint that government must be abolished. not really... maybe he means that it only applies to a given situation. since we're already in debt both our government and on average personally, he says that printing/borrowing/taxing more only puts us further in debt as peopel in favor of repaying the government debt. if the government spends less then it doesn't "mortgage our future" And having a higher marginal tax rate and getting rid of estate taxes could work to reduce the deficit. I fail to see how taxing more can put people into debt.
marginal tax rate is already 35% for the bracket you're talkign about that's absurdly high.
taxing isj ust one of hte things that takes hte wealth out of the private sector, so if the people are in debt on average, they will be more in debt on average.
|
On September 27 2011 09:25 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 09:14 DetriusXii wrote:On September 27 2011 08:55 Kiarip wrote:On September 27 2011 08:47 DetriusXii wrote:On September 27 2011 08:33 Tien wrote:
You can't afford what you can't afford.
Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for more expenses does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Are you trolling? Because your argument assumes that no government can ever reach a balanced budget. Canada had balanced budgets under Chretien's and Martin's governments. Basically, here's your argument. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for roads does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for police services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for fire inspection services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for a federal military does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for government administrator salaries does nothing but mortgage the future of the country There's no limit to your argument, only that government services must always be cut. You're adding nothing but an anarchist viewpoint that government must be abolished. not really... maybe he means that it only applies to a given situation. since we're already in debt both our government and on average personally, he says that printing/borrowing/taxing more only puts us further in debt as peopel in favor of repaying the government debt. if the government spends less then it doesn't "mortgage our future" And having a higher marginal tax rate and getting rid of estate taxes could work to reduce the deficit. I fail to see how taxing more can put people into debt. marginal tax rate is already 35% for the bracket you're talkign about that's absurdly high. taxing isj ust one of hte things that takes hte wealth out of the private sector, so if the people are in debt on average, they will be more in debt on average.
You've just made a subjective statement. Can you elaborate why marginal tax rate of 35% is absurdly high? Is 20% absurdly high? Is 5% absurdly high? Justify empirically why 35% is absurdly high. Otherwise, you're still offering an anarchist view point that all taxes are evil and that we shouldn't ever have taxes ever.
|
On September 27 2011 09:22 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 05:11 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 04:57 Tien wrote:
Why doesn't the government spend less instead of asking for more money? Really? Because the people want certain things paid for; infrastructure, energy, a judicial system, a political system, military defenses, social security, unemployment help, food stamps for the most impoverished people, law enforcement, wildlife conservation, on and on the list goes. Unless someone's storing the magical formula that will make the governing of 350M people more efficient than it is currently, reducing spending is asking people to give these things up. I'm no doctor, but for some reason when reading this post, I thought of the reasons we amputate limbs. It's not because we don't need those limbs anymore, but because if they are not amputated, the problems will likely progress and lead to our death. Something to think about.
Well, but of course. But it strikes me as a little odd that the services 'everyone' wants to get rid of, are the ones that the poor and middle-class make the most use out of.
Why is it we don't discuss the Bush tax cuts, the military spending budget or the proven nonsense that is trickle-down economics with such fervor? All of these accumulate as extra burdens the government has to pay for, but 'everyone' keeps rather tight-lipped about them. Curious, no?
|
On September 27 2011 09:30 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 09:22 Kaitlin wrote:On September 27 2011 05:11 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 04:57 Tien wrote:
Why doesn't the government spend less instead of asking for more money? Really? Because the people want certain things paid for; infrastructure, energy, a judicial system, a political system, military defenses, social security, unemployment help, food stamps for the most impoverished people, law enforcement, wildlife conservation, on and on the list goes. Unless someone's storing the magical formula that will make the governing of 350M people more efficient than it is currently, reducing spending is asking people to give these things up. I'm no doctor, but for some reason when reading this post, I thought of the reasons we amputate limbs. It's not because we don't need those limbs anymore, but because if they are not amputated, the problems will likely progress and lead to our death. Something to think about. Well, but of course. But it strikes me as a little odd that the services 'everyone' wants to get rid of, are the ones that the poor and middle-class make the most use out of. Why is it we don't discuss the Bush tax cuts, the military spending budget or the proven nonsense that is trickle-down economics with such fervor? All of these accumulate as extra burdens the government has to pay for, but 'everyone' keeps rather tight-lipped about them. Curious, no?
because it's the government's responsibility to balance the budget, not the people's. every single time they've increased taxes they've increased spending even more... it's time they take some steps back and prove to us that they are capable of decreasing spending, then we should consider giving them more money to help them get out of this shithole
You've just made a subjective statement. Can you elaborate why marginal tax rate of 35% is absurdly high? Is 20% absurdly high? Is 5% absurdly high? Justify empirically why 35% is absurdly high. Otherwise, you're still offering an anarchist view point that all taxes are evil and that we shouldn't ever have taxes ever.
ok... well if 35% isn't absurdly high let's tax all tax brackets that much.
if you think we need more tax revenue why not level the rest of the people to the same standards before taxing those that already pay the biggest percentage of their revenue.
you want objectivity? there.
|
On September 27 2011 09:30 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 09:22 Kaitlin wrote:On September 27 2011 05:11 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 04:57 Tien wrote:
Why doesn't the government spend less instead of asking for more money? Really? Because the people want certain things paid for; infrastructure, energy, a judicial system, a political system, military defenses, social security, unemployment help, food stamps for the most impoverished people, law enforcement, wildlife conservation, on and on the list goes. Unless someone's storing the magical formula that will make the governing of 350M people more efficient than it is currently, reducing spending is asking people to give these things up. I'm no doctor, but for some reason when reading this post, I thought of the reasons we amputate limbs. It's not because we don't need those limbs anymore, but because if they are not amputated, the problems will likely progress and lead to our death. Something to think about. Well, but of course. But it strikes me as a little odd that the services 'everyone' wants to get rid of, are the ones that the poor and middle-class make the most use out of. Why is it we don't discuss the Bush tax cuts, the military spending budget or the proven nonsense that is trickle-down economics with such fervor? All of these accumulate as extra burdens the government has to pay for, but 'everyone' keeps rather tight-lipped about them. Curious, no?
Speaking of the government spending...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
Looking at the supposed budget, I wonder if it'd be possible to at least cut the military budget somewhat. I'm certain it used to be much smaller before this, and loosening up some of the budget there could help with everything else, although I'm not sure if it'd be the best idea at the moment. And before anyone points out that the Medicare and Social Security spending are higher, I'm fully against cuts to Medicare simply because cutting it is the last thing they should do, and while I could easily make posts about the flaws of the current system as it is, this isn't necessarily the thread for that.
|
Life isn't fair and the middle class doesn't have the income to absorb new taxes. When most of the income of the United States is being captured by the top earners, it suggests that they should be taxed more. If you can show the phenomenal wage growth in the middle class, then maybe they could be a source of government revenue, but middle class families are being stressed by costs that are placed on them that were once subsidized through marginal tax rates. Elizabeth Warren's presentation of the collapse of the middle class.
You're again offering a value judgement that it's unfair to have marginal tax rates. So why not get rid of all marginal tax rates then? Is that what you want? A flat tax across the board for everyone?
|
On September 27 2011 09:47 DetriusXii wrote:Life isn't fair and the middle class doesn't have the income to absorb new taxes. When most of the income of the United States is being captured by the top earners, it suggests that they should be taxed more. If you can show the phenomenal wage growth in the middle class, then maybe they could be a source of government revenue, but middle class families are being stressed by costs that are placed on them that were once subsidized through marginal tax rates. Elizabeth Warren's presentation of the collapse of the middle class.You're again offering a value judgement that it's unfair to have marginal tax rates. So why not get rid of all marginal tax rates then? Is that what you want? A flat tax across the board for everyone?
well obviously you need a definition of fair.
but there's a reason why flat tax is called the fair tax. anyways i don't want an income tax at all. income tax is bad at its core. they just need a higher salestax.
edit:
and of course spending cuts... on tons of stuff.
you're the one who wanted to bring up objectivity into the equation... your posts have been plenty subjective also.
i don' think that the marginal rate needs to be highered to 35% for everyone... 35 % is too high in the first place... it's a rate that would destroy the livelihood of like the entire middle-class, but somehow if you're making more money it's not a big enough tax?
why are you trying to punish those that are successful...
plus taking all the money from them wont' cover the federal debt, and and taking all income wont' cover the deficit.
they need to cut spending, because the money is always better of in the private sector.
|
On September 27 2011 09:55 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 09:47 DetriusXii wrote:Life isn't fair and the middle class doesn't have the income to absorb new taxes. When most of the income of the United States is being captured by the top earners, it suggests that they should be taxed more. If you can show the phenomenal wage growth in the middle class, then maybe they could be a source of government revenue, but middle class families are being stressed by costs that are placed on them that were once subsidized through marginal tax rates. Elizabeth Warren's presentation of the collapse of the middle class.You're again offering a value judgement that it's unfair to have marginal tax rates. So why not get rid of all marginal tax rates then? Is that what you want? A flat tax across the board for everyone? well obviously you need a definition of fair. but there's a reason why flat tax is called the fair tax. anyways i don't want an income tax at all. income tax is bad at its core. they just need a higher salestax. edit: and of course spending cuts... on tons of stuff. you're the one who wanted to bring up objectivity into the equation... your posts have been plenty subjective also. i don' think that the marginal rate needs to be highered to 35% for everyone... 35 % is too high in the first place... it's a rate that would destroy the livelihood of like the entire middle-class, but somehow if you're making more money it's not a big enough tax? why are you trying to punish those that are successful... plus taking all the money from them wont' cover the federal debt, and and taking all income wont' cover the deficit. they need to cut spending, because the money is always better of in the private sector.
@Kiarip: I keep on saying marginal tax rates need to be increased. You keep on saying that marginal tax brackets on the rich will hurt the middle class. It suggests that you don't know the math to marginal tax brackets and you're confusing average tax rates to marginal tax rates.
The USA has a deficit. That deficit needs to be solved. Punishing the successful does seem to be a solution to closing the deficit gap. Right now, not "punishing" the successful is creating a fiscal mess that is affecting the middle class and poor right now.
If the Bush tax cuts were not to have been extended, a third of the US deficit would be removed right now. So it seems to suggest that taxing the rich does provide some measure of reducing the deficit.
And now you've brought up the greatest myth of all time. That somehow the private sector is more efficient at spending money than the public sector. Fire fighting services were socialized because the private sector was historically more inefficient. It's a contradiction in your argument and you need to stop peddling that bullshit. I think the private sector is better at making products, but I don't think they're always good to have. Contractors more expensive. The link I've just now cited is an example where the private sector is creating a myriad of inefficiencies and the government would have been more efficient by just hiring the contractors as staff. The government is essentially paying to interact with multiple independent administrations rather with their own managements.
|
in op, i believe it says, elitist right? Really now. So I guess you forgot about allllllllllllllll the right wingers talking about the opposite of what mr.buffet was saying. The top 1% income earners pay more than half of all taxes. SO.... how is buffet right? And how are the "elitist" right elitist when soooo many of them have been saying the rich pay too much in taxes. Just stating facts. Really starts to get annoying when people on the interwebz want to display there opinions with PRIDE and pretend to be sooo knowledgeable on shit that they don't even know about. Doesn't really matter if i'm right wing/left wing or in the fucking middle. Common sense is common sense, facts are facts. And uninformed dbags online will remain uninformed dbags.
|
On September 27 2011 10:18 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 09:55 Kiarip wrote:On September 27 2011 09:47 DetriusXii wrote:Life isn't fair and the middle class doesn't have the income to absorb new taxes. When most of the income of the United States is being captured by the top earners, it suggests that they should be taxed more. If you can show the phenomenal wage growth in the middle class, then maybe they could be a source of government revenue, but middle class families are being stressed by costs that are placed on them that were once subsidized through marginal tax rates. Elizabeth Warren's presentation of the collapse of the middle class.You're again offering a value judgement that it's unfair to have marginal tax rates. So why not get rid of all marginal tax rates then? Is that what you want? A flat tax across the board for everyone? well obviously you need a definition of fair. but there's a reason why flat tax is called the fair tax. anyways i don't want an income tax at all. income tax is bad at its core. they just need a higher salestax. edit: and of course spending cuts... on tons of stuff. you're the one who wanted to bring up objectivity into the equation... your posts have been plenty subjective also. i don' think that the marginal rate needs to be highered to 35% for everyone... 35 % is too high in the first place... it's a rate that would destroy the livelihood of like the entire middle-class, but somehow if you're making more money it's not a big enough tax? why are you trying to punish those that are successful... plus taking all the money from them wont' cover the federal debt, and and taking all income wont' cover the deficit. they need to cut spending, because the money is always better of in the private sector. @Kiarip: I keep on saying marginal tax rates need to be increased. You keep on saying that marginal tax brackets on the rich will hurt the middle class. It suggests that you don't know the math to marginal tax brackets and you're confusing average tax rates to marginal tax rates.
i didn't say it will hurt the middle class. i said that even the current level of taxes imposed on the rich would completely wreck the middle class, so how is such a percentages of taxes fair in the first place...
you're the one who brought up objective fairness...
The USA has a deficit. That deficit needs to be solved. Punishing the successful does seem to be a solution to closing the deficit gap. Right now, not "punishing" the successful is creating a fiscal mess that is affecting the middle class and poor right now.
um... no what's causing a "fiscal mess" is the regulations which makes our labor uncompetitive. Taxing the rich won't make them create jobs... if your only plan is to slowly take all their money to give it to the poor, that's fine eventually they'll have no more money left, and there will be no more jjobs than there were before, and there will be no one actually capable of creating jobs.
and what got us into this deficit is spending and not tax-cuts, because even if we took all the money from the top 2% of the population we still wouldn't cover the national debt.
If the Bush tax cuts were not to have been extended, a third of the US deficit would be removed right now. So it seems to suggest that taxing the rich does provide some measure of reducing the deficit.
so would cutting spending.
And now you've brought up the greatest myth of all time. That somehow the private sector is more efficient at spending money than the public sector. Fire fighting services were socialized because the private sector was historically more inefficient.
firefighting is a pretty extreme example. The vast majority of historical proof point to the inefficiency of big government and the way they spend money.
It's a contradiction in your argument and you need to stop peddling that bullshit. I think the private sector is better at making products, but I don't think they're always good to have. Contractors more expensive.
contractors implies that the government was the one spending the money in the first place... yeah, that's mistake # 1 you can't blame the contracters when it's the government who's handling the money roflz.
The link I've just now cited is an example where the private sector is creating a myriad of inefficiencies and the government would have been more efficient by just hiring the contractors as staff. The government is essentially paying to interact with multiple independent administrations rather with their own managements.
all those are example of contractors....
where government hires the private sector to do something... that's not the private sector doing work, that's the government mishandling money...
|
well obviously you need a definition of fair.
but there's a reason why flat tax is called the fair tax. anyways i don't want an income tax at all. income tax is bad at its core. they just need a higher salestax.
one can argue about fair. I don't think a flat tax is fair, because if you have more stuff you profit more from the state. Yeah there are many things where you do not profit at all, but those things also exist for poor people. For example take the most obvious one : Defense. If the US is invated the most a poor person can lose is his life, his rights and the little stuff he has. Rich person also can lose all this stuff, but he can lose much more stuff. So the protection he revices is worth more money than the protection poor people recive.
I know that this example is quite silly, but it's the easiest to understand.
The most benefit the rich person revices is a benefit that the poor person revices, but it's worth more for the rich person.
Education, Medicare and unemployment paiments are examples for this. Educated, healthy workers are worth more than they cost to produce. With more money your chances to profit from them is obviously much better than the chances a poor person has.
------------
Maybe the following is a little bit Offtopic because it focuses on the budget and not how to treat certain people :
When i look at the US-budget and i compare it with the german one. I honestly have the feeling that the us is waisting money on a big scale.
The german budget for 2012 is 306 Billion euro which is around 459 Billion Dollar (1 Euro = 1,5 Dollar to make it very simpel). So if i scalle the 82 Million population to a 311 Million one i get a budget of arround 1741 Billion, which is not even half of the us budget and i honestly ask myself why is that the case?
(For those who don't know how it looks in Germany : http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/nn_139992/DE/BMF__Startseite/Multimedia/Infografiken-Bundeshaushalt/InfografikenBildergalerie,gtp=139996__3D4.html?__nnn=true#imggallerytop
the for biggest chunks : 1. Work and Socialstuff (unemployment paiments, money for the retirement (we also have social security but the state needs to put more money into it to make it work, this money is one of the biggest chunk under this point)
2.Payments for the debt and new debt
3. Defense
4. Other stuff
Mrd. = Billion = 10^9
If someone could make the world a little bit clearer for me i would be thankfull.
|
Contractors more expensive. The link I've just now cited is an example where the private sector is creating a myriad of inefficiencies and the government would have been more efficient by just hiring the contractors as staff. The government is essentially paying to interact with multiple independent administrations rather with their own managements.
Are you really surprised that it's very expensive to hire what are essentially mercenaries? It seems that the recruiting directors are slacking. You're looking at paying mercenaries that work for the highest bidder vs soldiers who are "willing" to paid less for whatever reasons they encounter, I don't understand why people find this surprising. This isn't private sector waste, this is the free market in action, making up for a shortage of manpower on the government's part. If the government is overpaying them, then its government waste by definition, and the contractors are just reaping the rewards of a broken system.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 27 2011 09:25 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 09:14 DetriusXii wrote:On September 27 2011 08:55 Kiarip wrote:On September 27 2011 08:47 DetriusXii wrote:On September 27 2011 08:33 Tien wrote:
You can't afford what you can't afford.
Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for more expenses does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Are you trolling? Because your argument assumes that no government can ever reach a balanced budget. Canada had balanced budgets under Chretien's and Martin's governments. Basically, here's your argument. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for roads does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for police services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for fire inspection services does nothing but mortgage the future of the country Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for a federal military does nothing but mortgage the future of the country. Printing / borrowing / taxing more money to pay for government administrator salaries does nothing but mortgage the future of the country There's no limit to your argument, only that government services must always be cut. You're adding nothing but an anarchist viewpoint that government must be abolished. not really... maybe he means that it only applies to a given situation. since we're already in debt both our government and on average personally, he says that printing/borrowing/taxing more only puts us further in debt as peopel in favor of repaying the government debt. if the government spends less then it doesn't "mortgage our future" And having a higher marginal tax rate and getting rid of estate taxes could work to reduce the deficit. I fail to see how taxing more can put people into debt. marginal tax rate is already 35% for the bracket you're talkign about that's absurdly high. taxing isj ust one of hte things that takes hte wealth out of the private sector, so if the people are in debt on average, they will be more in debt on average.
35% is not absurdly high, in some countries it's 70% or higher, and they do just fine.
|
On September 27 2011 10:31 TeH_CaRnAg3 wrote:
in op, i believe it says, elitist right? Really now. So I guess you forgot about allllllllllllllll the right wingers talking about the opposite of what mr.buffet was saying. The top 1% income earners pay more than half of all taxes. SO.... how is buffet right? And how are the "elitist" right elitist when soooo many of them have been saying the rich pay too much in taxes. Just stating facts. Really starts to get annoying when people on the interwebz want to display there opinions with PRIDE and pretend to be sooo knowledgeable on shit that they don't even know about. Doesn't really matter if i'm right wing/left wing or in the fucking middle. Common sense is common sense, facts are facts. And uninformed dbags online will remain uninformed dbags.
This is an English speaking forum. Please respect that.
|
On September 27 2011 09:55 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 09:47 DetriusXii wrote:Life isn't fair and the middle class doesn't have the income to absorb new taxes. When most of the income of the United States is being captured by the top earners, it suggests that they should be taxed more. If you can show the phenomenal wage growth in the middle class, then maybe they could be a source of government revenue, but middle class families are being stressed by costs that are placed on them that were once subsidized through marginal tax rates. Elizabeth Warren's presentation of the collapse of the middle class.You're again offering a value judgement that it's unfair to have marginal tax rates. So why not get rid of all marginal tax rates then? Is that what you want? A flat tax across the board for everyone? well obviously you need a definition of fair. but there's a reason why flat tax is called the fair tax. anyways i don't want an income tax at all. income tax is bad at its core. they just need a higher salestax. edit: and of course spending cuts... on tons of stuff. you're the one who wanted to bring up objectivity into the equation... your posts have been plenty subjective also. i don' think that the marginal rate needs to be highered to 35% for everyone... 35 % is too high in the first place... it's a rate that would destroy the livelihood of like the entire middle-class, but somehow if you're making more money it's not a big enough tax? why are you trying to punish those that are successful... plus taking all the money from them wont' cover the federal debt, and and taking all income wont' cover the deficit. they need to cut spending, because the money is always better of in the private sector.
Higher sales tax all the way. make the illegals actually pay tax.
|
35% is not absurdly high, in some countries it's 70% or higher, and they do just fine.
Don't forget
- State Taxes
- Property Taxes
- Capital Gains Taxes
- Estate Taxes
- Sales Taxes
- Sin Taxes
- Gas Taxes
- Payroll Taxes
- And Many More I haven't looked up!
Just a reminder that these listed already on top of the 35% federal income tax that this bracket pays. Trust me, we pay our fair share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
