I can't support low taxes for the rich job-creators because I have the understanding that it is demand, not investment, that allows the economy to grow. More money in the hands of more people who want to buy things is better for the economy than more money in the hands of fewer people who already have lots of money.
http://qz.com/37639 And for m'boy ceezmad: Why the spending cuts in the fiscal cliff won’t solve America’s fiscal problems
The problem is that we have lost all ability to engage in rational conversation. Right now, the idea that we raise taxes on the wealthy from 35 to 38% is described as socialism. Yay media.
What you qouted tells me that the solution is to cut Social Security benefits by 25% then the problem will be solved at least "as far as the eye can see". Well the problem is that you and people like dapip think that raising taxes on only the Rich will be enough to solve the problem. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48771227/Why_Raising_Taxes_on_the_Wealthy_Wonrsquot_Work Taxing the Rich will only Generate less than 100 Billion over two years (By CNN Money) eventually the Rich that can (the super wealthy) will move from high taxable income to less taxable income (Capital Gains and such), so this will not gain the tax revenues Liberals wet dream about, so what is needed is a raise in Capital gains tax also. Closing loopholes in the tax system will also help (even more than higher rates), but I believe that the Alternate minimum tax will do this unless congress passes a “fix” to it, this will affect Millions of Americans next year and will reduce many deductions many people take, creating more revenues. http://www.economist.com/node/21543165
ceezmad: Man... Please read more carefully and don’t put me in the same bandwagon as you. You are extremely simplistic and think that other posters see the world as you do. No. That is not the case. It is not only raising taxes. Your 20% GDP limit sucks big time. Government spending is needed in time of crisis, whatever the percentage is. Once the economy is back in track we can start talking about deficits and debt. Do I want the wealthy to pay more taxes? YES... Do I see that as the quintessential solution to the fiscal crisis? NO. I want us to invest in growing the GDP, in making the poor and the middle class earn more. Do you want the middle class to have more “skin in the game”? Well, for starters give them back some of their skin. If wealthy people is being taxed at a lower rate and that causes inequality and budget deficits, how do you think that we can go back to a fairer society and to balance the budget eventually? How else can I say the same thing so you understand? Invest in policies that make incomes grow for everyone, not only the 1%. You tax a little more (like 3-4% or back to the Clinton years) the rich people so we have some money to invest in said policies. If people earns more, 1. They pay more taxes and 2. They require less assistance from government. Boom. More revenue, less expenditures. Budget balanced, even a little surplus down the line. Then we will deal with the debt. Regarding the social security, benefit cuts will be needed in 2030, IF we don’t do anything. Or forever with little adjustments. Seriously, read more carefully
We should all write to our representatives in congress and warn them to beware "DER FISKALKLIPPE". That just might wake them up, everything sounds more ominous in German.
Look, the entire Republican party is bankrolled by really rich people, and they know it. They can't back down on the no taxes thing, they just can't.
No, the key is to get costs for pills and procedures and doctors and machines in line with the ROTW. That, right there, would slash medical spending.
I have to say that I think income taxes are hideous and immoral. Tax a man for working? Damned, that is wrong on so many levels. I believe a non-regressive sales tax could be worked out, but the rich want to keep their income exception and the government does not want everybody to really understand how much their help costs us. I am outraged that a person making millions upon millions thins it is justifiable that they have a less net tax rate on their actual and real income (they call it capital gains but a gain is by its definition income)u than a single teacher making seventy k or so a year. The thing that makes me most astonied is the upper middle class who believe with their entire heart this somehow a fair tax policy.
And for all the stuff that is provided prior to working, such as police, roads, education, etc. Not logical. Those with money who are really concerned with keeping it will buy down. Heck, have you been to places like TJMaxx or Ross? You see all the Benzes, Lexuses, and Bemers in the parking lot? It is called being frugal. 1 - Agreed 2 - A teacher making 70k? Where are they teaching? Many of them, I see, are stuck between being typical middle class and wanting to be upper class. Thus, I see many of them trying to behave like they are upper class when it really does not benefit them.
Technically the 3 you mentioned are paid by Property taxes at the local level (fuel taxes for roads), now we know that the Federal government is now involved in all 3 of them, but that was never the intention. Maybe better examples would have been the Federal Air Administration, Social Security, Military, Farm subsidies and funds to bail out "to big to fail" industries.
In Hilliard, Ohio. http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/teacher-salary Do a search for Hilliard City School District, salary $70,000 - $100,000+.
Hey at least we found some things we can agree on right? As for the stuff provided for the working man, I never said I thought taxes were immoral, I said I thought INCOME taxes were immoral. There is a distinction there. As for the not logical aspect--- the statement you give to support your point, support mine as well, Those nice cars in the parking lot would have had that sales tax applied to them as well the three hundred k home they live in while the working person would have paid the same percent on his yugo/hyundai/civic and his 150 k home. (perhaps some sort of threshold or exemption could be worked out on owner occupied residences. ) Occam's razor solution comes into play. Offshore tax havens, corporate shells, differentiation of types of income, and child subsidy by the public all gone.
So for what I am hearing, maybe a small tax increase to some rich people, very small cuts on spending and we kick the can down to end of February (Spending limit) and start all over again Very Nice Job to all! So who has the upper hand when it comes to the deficit ceiling negotiations, specially if the President wins and all we get before January are Tax increases on the Rich?
Unemployment benes get plowed right back into the economy. Tax breaks to "job creators"...who knows? Their track record hasn't been so hot the last decade.
The US$ and the US economy is doomed, no matter what the Democrats and Republican may be able to agree upon, and so it has been ever since the US government lost the power over the US$ to private banks.... the President and the government no longer control the US economy or future, and this is how it has been for too many years ... watch this : http://www.khq.com/category/195686/video-landing-page?clipId=8108860&auto .
http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-vote-to-repeal-obamabacked-bill-that-w,19025/ Doesn't seem all that implausible, does it?
I'll see your Koch brothers and raise you a George Soros. Both sides are bankrolled by really rich people.
When did Meet the Press become Fox News? That "round table" would have been less reactionary right if it had included Greta Van Sustern and the rest. And little Davey the moderator sure got butt hurt over some tweet about him being a "lazy pundit" which he is.
What portion of the current deficit is caused by that third generation of government dependents? How many spaces to the right of the decimal point before there's a number higher than zero?
I am not sure what that means (is that a PC way to say retired people?), but here is a chart just for fun. Here is another.