1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

Top 1% would give up their tax cuts

Discussion in 'Economics, Business, and Taxes' started by 888888, Dec 27, 2011.

  1. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    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!"
     
  2. 888888

    888888 Council Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    73
    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.
     
  3. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    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?
     
  4. StanH

    StanH Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    29
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. 888888

    888888 Council Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    73
    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.
     
  6. RickWA

    RickWA Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    20,507
    Likes Received:
    6,791
    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.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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%.
     
  9. 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!!!
     
  10. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    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)...
     
  11. Your strident exaggerations invalidate every possible Lefty point you might make.


    Keep up the good work.
     
  12. Barbella

    Barbella Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    29,683
    Likes Received:
    11,138
    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/
     
  13. worldlymrb

    worldlymrb America: Love it or Leave it!

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    12,049
    Likes Received:
    2,295
    Make it voluntary then.
     
  14. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    "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.
     
  15. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    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
     
  16. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    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
     
  17. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    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.
     
  18. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    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.
     
  19. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    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".
     
  20. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    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...
     

Share This Page