New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Top 1% would give up their tax cuts

Lukey

Senator
No what I say is the system of govt needs to provide a way for everyone to have a chance to a level of success that allows them to exsist on their own.

at sometime when the system of govt is broken all hell will break out, is that what you want. Your willing to risk all you have or all you can get because your not willing to make sure the system of govt we have survives.

Those who have nothing have little to lose, it's people who have much more than they need, however they got it that will lose the most.
Be greedy and be ready for the outcome.
Just like the days of old, the treatment of workers that led to Unions, is not far away from where the have nots are about to say enough. You do realize that if enough people say this is BS and vote to overthrow your right wing agenda you are history. The days of 35% tax may well come to be 75% or more if it is felt we need it. and your crying about giving a little will be a thing of the past.

Asking people who don't have enough now to give part of it away so you can feel good is plain stupid and greedy. The tax system you are asking for would cause much more than you believe to be paid in. Getting rid of all deductions would never happen, let along making all income the same.

The wealthy people will not let it happen.

8 years ago I said that the republicans were out to bankrupt the govt, so they could get rid of unions, and govt programs that go to help the average citizen and the poor.
I was right then and I am right now.
How is that argument different (morally) from the mobster going to the businessman and telling him: "You have a nice little business here. It would be a shame if something bad were to happen to it. It'll take two large a week to make sure it doesn't. Cash, in a plain brown envelope. Remember, you've got a lot to lose here. See you next week!"
 

888888

Council Member
Here's the problem. You reference the property of the 1% as "theirs", hence I conclude that you are not one of them. Then you state that "we can afford" to put people to work using "their" money.

Given this - penned by your own hand - I must conclude that it is your contention that private property is communal in nature.

Perhaps you wrote this by mistake?
What I said is the tax rates should go back to where they were. The money collected by the higher tax could be used to put people back to work.

The people who make the most use the most of what our system of govt has to provide, so why wouldn't they be expected to contribute more to the running of such govt. We are not collecting enough now to pay for what we spend, so why would you collect less.
The things I don't understand is your willing to take from the poor and middle class, but you are not willing to go without good roads, a great military and anything needed for business use.
 

Lukey

Senator
and who should pay for the things needed to keep this country as the greatest nation in the world? So defense, road building, airports, schools, electric grid, govt buildings, ect are things who should be doing and paying for? Should not the govt collect what is need to do this from those who are using this the most.
Do you really believe that some guy working in an office or a on a farm or digging a ditch should be equally responsible for what this govt spends to keep us going as someone making 100,000 or a million or a billion or more?
Um, yes! Everyone who is a citizen benefits the same from living in America. Our welfare recipients, with all their obesity and substance abuse and subsidized comfortable housing are WAY better off than the poor in China. So don't they benefit from living in America (relatively speaking) as much as the average multi-millionaire? How can anyone but a stone cold Marxist advocate a system where the people get to decade what government should do for them and only a small minority with money will be made to pay the cost?
 

StanH

Council Member
Right now today we could afford to put 5 million people to work at above poverty wage jobs.

Those 5 million jobs would provide for the hiring of another million or so people.

Why not to the right thing and vote to repeal the tax cuts for the top 1%, but really the top 10% would be better., or for that matter all tax cuts enacted under Bush and re issued under Obama.

Lets take that money and revive our economy. Hire the people who are in desperate need of employment.

This would create more tax base, less unemployment compensation and more charity to go around because there would be less people who would need it.
Just look at all the programs that now are in place to help people that could be scaled back or done away with.

The people who would be giving up the most are not in need of it. And the fact remains that it would just make for more profit by corp's and lead to a stock market rise.

So why not be a Patriotic American and press for all tax cut to end from the bush era. If a group needs more help after that we can deal with that.

We cannot bring America back without jobs, and massive amount of poor people who need help will not go away without proving jobs.

Revising the tax codes as they now are is surely needed, but that will take years to do if the will is even there. :)

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country
I doubt I'm much different from the 1% regarding tax increases. I'd be willing to pay more if government would just show they can be good, responsible stewards of the money we provide them.

So far I haven't seen any sign of that.
 

888888

Council Member
How is that argument different (morally) from the mobster going to the businessman and telling him: "You have a nice little business here. It would be a shame if something bad were to happen to it. It'll take two large a week to make sure it doesn't. Cash, in a plain brown envelope. Remember, you've got a lot to lose here. See you next week!"
The mobster has done nothing for you, the govt has. Are you saying the govt is mobster?
But really, do you want the majority of people living like slaves and a few rich people living like kings.

But isn't that exactly what the rich are doing now to the middle class, either you except what we want to give you or we will ship your job overseas? But you just call that good business.
 

RickWA

Senator
I'm just fine with EVERYONE having their taxes raised. What I don't like is selective "get-evenism" and covetousness rebadged as social justice. You want to tax me more - have at it. Just make sure that everyone is pulling the wagon.
 
G

Greenridgeman

Guest
OK. Bottom bracket goes from 10% to 15% when Bush tax cuts are repealed, million go BACK into positive taxation, instead of refunds and EIC. Now, that is going to put some money in the Treasury too.

Did you see the Top 4 Corporations for hoarding money?

Guess #1.
 
G

Greenridgeman

Guest
Yeah, most of the lost revenue from the EVILE Bush tax cuts that are now the HOLY Obama tax cut extensions came from the 99%.
 
G

Greenridgeman

Guest
In China, most of our poor would be shot for their substance abuse habits and for "workshy behvior".


But, like child-sex slaves in Thailand, the limousine Liberals can't talk about THAT!!!
 

Lukey

Senator
The mobster has done nothing for you, the govt has. Are you saying the govt is mobster?
But really, do you want the majority of people living like slaves and a few rich people living like kings.

But isn't that exactly what the rich are doing now to the middle class, either you except what we want to give you or we will ship your job overseas? But you just call that good business.
These situations are identical. In your example, the government is in cahoots with the ravenous masses to extract protection money from the rich. In mine, the mobster is in cahoots with the gangs to extract protection money from the businessman. I tried this argument with my sister this morning (who I love but she's a communist) and she argued that because doing it through the government puts the law on the extortionists' side so that makes it different. But in my view that's a distinction without a difference. It's still mob rule (and extortion)...
 
G

Greenridgeman

Guest
Your strident exaggerations invalidate every possible Lefty point you might make.


Keep up the good work.
 

Barbella

Senator
Good idea!

Capitol Hill millionaires. That group has grown in recent years to include nearly half of all members of Congress — 250 in all — and the wealth gap between lawmakers and their constituents appears to be growing quickly, even as Congress debates unemployment benefits, possible cuts in food stamps and a “millionaire’s tax.”

"Largely insulated from the country’s economic downturn since 2008, members of Congress — many of them among the “1 percenters” denounced by Occupy Wall Street protesters — have gotten much richer even as most of the country has become much poorer in the last six years, according to an analysis by The New York Times based on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group.

There is broad debate about just why the wealth gap appears to be growing. For starters, the prohibitive costs of political campaigning may discourage the less affluent from even considering a candidacy. Beyond that, loose ethics controls, shrewd stock picks, profitable land deals, favorable tax laws, inheritances and even marriages to wealthy spouses are all cited as possible explanations for the rising fortunes on Capitol Hill.

What is clear is that members of Congress are getting richer compared not only with the average American worker, but also with other very rich Americans.

While the median net worth of members of Congress jumped 15 percent from 2004 to 2010, the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans remained essentially flat. For all Americans, median net worth dropped 8 percent during that period, based on inflation-adjusted data from Moody’s Analytics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45793299...ew_york_times/
 

degsme

Council Member
These situations are identical. In your example, the government is in cahoots with the ravenous masses to extract protection money from the rich. In mine, the mobster is in cahoots with the gangs to extract protection money from the businessman. I tried this argument with my sister this morning (who I love but she's a communist) and she argued that because doing it through the government puts the law on the extortionists' side so that makes it different. But in my view that's a distinction without a difference. It's still mob rule (and extortion)...
"mobster" and "mob" are not the same thing. So right off the bat you are in logical fallacy territory.

Secondly, a mobster uses coercive force to compell you to act; a democracy like the USA does nothing to compell you to remain in the USA. But the REALITY is that from a marginal rate of 70% on down, the wealthy PREFER to stay in the USA.

IOW even at a marginal tax rate of 70% the "net benefit" to the wealthy is better than the deal they can get pretty much anywhere else in the world. Odd that.
 

degsme

Council Member
That's just it Bo, it's not an "exaggeration." It's (Marxist philosophy) what underlies every Democrat tax proposal.
Marxism is that workers own the means of production... not the government, nor simply progressive taxation nor social welfare.

So Bo seems to be on the right track about you losing your grip when someone who supposedly has studied economics cannot even stick to the definitions of economic lines of thought.
Come on - confiscate "unneeded" income above a certain level and redistribute it? WTF do you think this is, tiddly winks?
All societies redistribute wealth. So it then becomes a SOCIAL POLICY as to WHAT KiND of redistribution the society desires and finds functional. You essentially are saying that ONLY the wealthy and powerful should have a say. IOW you don't believe in democracy.

Well that's kinda consistent with most conservatives.

Its bad economics WRT growth and market efficiencies, but its consistent ideologically
 

degsme

Council Member
Um, yes! Everyone who is a citizen benefits the same from living in America.
That's just bullshite. Someone who is poor does not get the same protection of private property as someone who is wealthy. Nor access to the courts, nor military protection of trade routes, nor enforcement of IP protections etc. etc.

FACTS MATTER
 

degsme

Council Member
Make it voluntary then.
Well in essence that's already in play - its called charitable giving. The problem is that as a result you have sub-optimal and non-democratic resource allocation. Hardly desirable if you want to have good growth and democratic poliices.
 

degsme

Council Member
OK. Bottom bracket goes from 10% to 15% when Bush tax cuts are repealed, million go BACK into positive taxation, instead of refunds and EIC. Now, that is going to put some money in the Treasury too.
Again, with 105 million individual/married tax filers, "millions" is a couple of percent and not a meaningful number

Innumeracy and conservativism == friends for life.
 

degsme

Council Member
I doubt I'm much different from the 1% regarding tax increases. I'd be willing to pay more if government would just show they can be good, responsible stewards of the money we provide them.

So far I haven't seen any sign of that.
Because you don't seem to reason well about economics. Let me ask you this, how many times your income was your peak mortgage debt? 150%? 200%? 300%?

For the average american WHO IS NOT BANKRUPT, its around 300%.... and yet the Government is far below that at barely 100% of GDP. And yet you consider that "bad stewardship".
 

Lukey

Senator
Marxism is that workers own the means of production... not the government, nor simply progressive taxation nor social welfare.

So Bo seems to be on the right track about you losing your grip when someone who supposedly has studied economics cannot even stick to the definitions of economic lines of thought.

All societies redistribute wealth. So it then becomes a SOCIAL POLICY as to WHAT KiND of redistribution the society desires and finds functional. You essentially are saying that ONLY the wealthy and powerful should have a say. IOW you don't believe in democracy.

Well that's kinda consistent with most conservatives.

Its bad economics WRT growth and market efficiencies, but its consistent ideologically
We've been through this a dozen times. Not any more. Not even the Communist Party USA advocates that the workers own the means of production these days. It's all about wealth redistribution through government policy (any idea what that makes you?). You think this semantic exercise insulates you from the Marxism behind your economic proposals. It does not...
 
Top