Why the 1% should pay tax at 80%

[kalm]

We do not have a taxation issue in this country
Yes there are a few key loopholes that must be fixed that are designed to hide money

But generally speaking Taxes are NOT the problem
We have a Federal Government that cannot function on 2.7 trillion dollars
How the FUCK is that possible

It's broken beyond belief
and TAXES ain't the problem
Taxes is simply a clever diversion from the actual problem

We do not have a spending issue in this country.

We have chosen to spend what we spend, but have also chosen to not pay for it. The damn cat was let out of the bag when a middle class formed and started expecting a moderately high standard of living...the greedy fuckers

Then, we chose to become the world police.

Then, we chose to end poverty which, was obviously a huge success as my conk brothers keep telling me we have the richest poor people on earth...or something like that.

We have 300+million people Chizzy, and tons of shiny trinkets all playing a role in these funding choices we make. You say $2.7 trillion is more than enough. What is the right amount?

See how easy this is?

[kalm]

This is a very good article btw, both for its historical analysis and in questioning the sacred cow of supply side tax policies. It never ceases to amaze me how Reagan/thatchernomics continues to turn conks into deficit builders and hippies into fiscal conservatives.

[CID1990]

We do not have a taxation issue in this country
Yes there are a few key loopholes that must be fixed that are designed to hide money

But generally speaking Taxes are NOT the problem
We have a Federal Government that cannot function on 2.7 trillion dollars
How the **** is that possible

It's broken beyond belief
and TAXES ain't the problem
Taxes is simply a clever diversion from the actual problem

We do not have a spending issue in this country.

We have chosen to spend what we spend, but have also chosen to not pay for it. The damn cat was let out of the bag when a middle class formed and started expecting a moderately high standard of living...the greedy ****

Then, we chose to become the world police.

Then, we chose to end poverty which, was obviously a huge success as my conk brothers keep telling me we have the richest poor people on earth...or something like that.

We have 300+million people Chizzy, and tons of shiny trinkets all playing a role in these funding choices we make. You say $2.7 trillion is more than enough. What is the right amount?

See how easy this is?

You need to get out more.

We choose not to pay because the payment would be too painful and people would not be reelected.

As for the poor in America... people from all over the world die trying to walk across deserts or sail across oceans in shipping containers in order to be "poor" in America. Maybe we can do better for the poor, but seeing how the rest of the world lives and then coming home to hear that conservatives want to starve children or wage a War on Wimmen TM is beyond the pale.

Any chimpanzee could look at our balance sheet and cut large chunks out of it that nobody would miss, but none of that is ever on the table.... all in the name of providing cheap largesse to the Rikki Lake voting bloc.

And one last thing- I know foreign wars and interventions are only onerous to most liberals when a Republican is in office. I would bring our troops home even from places like Germany and Korea as well. But that said, the total bill from every single war or quasi-war we have fought since WWII pales in comparison to the last 5 years of entitlement and non military spending alone. And we just added an additional 1 trillion to that number with the stroke of a pen.

So if you want to be taken seriously you shouldn't point to military spending (which can easily be halved, IMO) as somehow being anywhere near the absolute runaway train that our non military financial obligations are.

[AZGrizFan]

We do not have a spending issue in this country.

We have chosen to spend what we spend, but have also chosen to not pay for it. The damn cat was let out of the bag when a middle class formed and started expecting a moderately high standard of living...the greedy ****

Then, we chose to become the world police.

Then, we chose to end poverty which, was obviously a huge success as my conk brothers keep telling me we have the richest poor people on earth...or something like that.

We have 300+million people Chizzy, and tons of shiny trinkets all playing a role in these funding choices we make. You say $2.7 trillion is more than enough. What is the right amount?

See how easy this is?

You need to get out more.

We choose not to pay because the payment would be too painful and people would not be reelected.

As for the poor in America... people from all over the world die trying to walk across deserts or sail across oceans in shipping containers in order to be "poor" in America. Maybe we can do better for the poor, but seeing how the rest of the world lives and then coming home to hear that conservatives want to starve children or wage a War on Wimmen TM is beyond the pale.

Any chimpanzee could look at our balance sheet and cut large chunks out of it that nobody would miss, but none of that is ever on the table.... all in the name of providing cheap largesse to the Rikki Lake voting bloc.

And one last thing- I know foreign wars and interventions are only onerous to most liberals when a Republican is in office. I would bring our troops home even from places like Germany and Korea as well. But that said, the total bill from every single war or quasi-war we have fought since WWII pales in comparison to the last 5 years of entitlement and non military spending alone. And we just added an additional 1 trillion to that number with the stroke of a pen.

So if you want to be taken seriously you shouldn't point to military spending (which can easily be halved, IMO) as somehow being anywhere near the absolute runaway train that our non military financial obligations are.

Another homerun.

/thread.

[SDHornet]

You need to get out more.

We choose not to pay because the payment would be too painful and people would not be reelected.

As for the poor in America... people from all over the world die trying to walk across deserts or sail across oceans in shipping containers in order to be "poor" in America. Maybe we can do better for the poor, but seeing how the rest of the world lives and then coming home to hear that conservatives want to starve children or wage a War on Wimmen TM is beyond the pale.

Any chimpanzee could look at our balance sheet and cut large chunks out of it that nobody would miss, but none of that is ever on the table.... all in the name of providing cheap largesse to the Rikki Lake voting bloc.

And one last thing- I know foreign wars and interventions are only onerous to most liberals when a Republican is in office. I would bring our troops home even from places like Germany and Korea as well. But that said, the total bill from every single war or quasi-war we have fought since WWII pales in comparison to the last 5 years of entitlement and non military spending alone. And we just added an additional 1 trillion to that number with the stroke of a pen.

So if you want to be taken seriously you shouldn't point to military spending (which can easily be halved, IMO) as somehow being anywhere near the absolute runaway train that our non military financial obligations are.

Another homerun.

/thread.

[kalm]

We do not have a spending issue in this country.

We have chosen to spend what we spend, but have also chosen to not pay for it. The damn cat was let out of the bag when a middle class formed and started expecting a moderately high standard of living...the greedy ****

Then, we chose to become the world police.

Then, we chose to end poverty which, was obviously a huge success as my conk brothers keep telling me we have the richest poor people on earth...or something like that.

We have 300+million people Chizzy, and tons of shiny trinkets all playing a role in these funding choices we make. You say $2.7 trillion is more than enough. What is the right amount?

See how easy this is?

You need to get out more.

We choose not to pay because the payment would be too painful and people would not be reelected.

As for the poor in America... people from all over the world die trying to walk across deserts or sail across oceans in shipping containers in order to be "poor" in America. Maybe we can do better for the poor, but seeing how the rest of the world lives and then coming home to hear that conservatives want to starve children or wage a War on Wimmen TM is beyond the pale.

Any chimpanzee could look at our balance sheet and cut large chunks out of it that nobody would miss, but none of that is ever on the table.... all in the name of providing cheap largesse to the Rikki Lake voting bloc.

And one last thing- I know foreign wars and interventions are only onerous to most liberals when a Republican is in office. I would bring our troops home even from places like Germany and Korea as well. But that said, the total bill from every single war or quasi-war we have fought since WWII pales in comparison to the last 5 years of entitlement and non military spending alone. And we just added an additional 1 trillion to that number with the stroke of a pen.

So if you want to be taken seriously you shouldn't point to military spending (which can easily be halved, IMO) as somehow being anywhere near the absolute runaway train that our non military financial obligations are.

Ummmm Chizzz, you do realize we pretty much agree?

I was satirically responding, so I'll repeat...

It's just as easy to make a case that we've collectively CHOSEN to spend the amount we spend...on everything, regardless of necessity or waste (two VERY subjective criteria) and CHOSEN to not pay for it as it is to ring our hands and say revenue isn't the problem.

I agree there is a shit ton of waste...at every level.

If I were a conk, I'd say 'trim the fat! Cut the dead weight! Run the country like a business - efficiency, efficiency, efficiency"!!!! Forgetting that businesses really want to minimize expenses WHILE increasing revenue to avoid insolvency.

Of course cutting is easy. it's producing an equal if not better product on a smaller budget that's the challenge.

Especially with OUR customers.

[Chizzang]

You need to get out more.

We choose not to pay because the payment would be too painful and people would not be reelected.

As for the poor in America... people from all over the world die trying to walk across deserts or sail across oceans in shipping containers in order to be "poor" in America. Maybe we can do better for the poor, but seeing how the rest of the world lives and then coming home to hear that conservatives want to starve children or wage a War on Wimmen TM is beyond the pale.

Any chimpanzee could look at our balance sheet and cut large chunks out of it that nobody would miss, but none of that is ever on the table.... all in the name of providing cheap largesse to the Rikki Lake voting bloc.

And one last thing- I know foreign wars and interventions are only onerous to most liberals when a Republican is in office. I would bring our troops home even from places like Germany and Korea as well. But that said, the total bill from every single war or quasi-war we have fought since WWII pales in comparison to the last 5 years of entitlement and non military spending alone. And we just added an additional 1 trillion to that number with the stroke of a pen.

So if you want to be taken seriously you shouldn't point to military spending (which can easily be halved, IMO) as somehow being anywhere near the absolute runaway train that our non military financial obligations are.

Ummmm Chizzz, you do realize we pretty much agree?

I was satirically responding, so I'll repeat...

It's just as easy to make a case that we've collectively CHOSEN to spend the amount we spend...on everything, regardless of necessity or waste (two VERY subjective criteria) and CHOSEN to not pay for it as it is to ring our hands and say revenue isn't the problem.

I agree there is a shit ton of waste...at every level.

If I were a conk, I'd say 'trim the fat! Cut the dead weight! Run the country like a business - efficiency, efficiency, efficiency"!!!! Forgetting that businesses really want to minimize expenses WHILE increasing revenue to avoid insolvency.

Of course cutting is easy. it's producing an equal if not better product on a smaller budget that's the challenge.

Especially with OUR customers.

Um... I'm Chizzang
and yes I am the only one who realized you were being sarcastic

[Pwns]

All I can really ask for is an honest debate. We are told by the social justice crusaders that the kkkapitalist robber baron 1%ers are hoarding all the money and that's why things are so bad. In reality, you just aren't going to balance the budget by taxing the rich more. Most people over the poverty line are going to have to contribute more to balance the budgets without cuts. Of course if you tell that truth good luck winning elections. It's much easier to blame the rich for all of our problems.

[kalm]

Ummmm Chizzz, you do realize we pretty much agree?

I was satirically responding, so I'll repeat...

It's just as easy to make a case that we've collectively CHOSEN to spend the amount we spend...on everything, regardless of necessity or waste (two VERY subjective criteria) and CHOSEN to not pay for it as it is to ring our hands and say revenue isn't the problem.

I agree there is a shit ton of waste...at every level.

If I were a conk, I'd say 'trim the fat! Cut the dead weight! Run the country like a business - efficiency, efficiency, efficiency"!!!! Forgetting that businesses really want to minimize expenses WHILE increasing revenue to avoid insolvency.

Of course cutting is easy. it's producing an equal if not better product on a smaller budget that's the challenge.

Especially with OUR customers.

Um... I'm Chizzang
and yes I am the only one who realized you were being sarcastic

I know, and thank you.

[HI54UNI]

Remember this - if you take EVERYTHING that those on the Forbes 400 list has you can't even balance the budget for one year. Raising taxes isn't the answer. Cutting spending is.

[DSUrocks07]

Remember this - if you take EVERYTHING that those on the Forbes 400 list has you can't even balance the budget for one year. Raising taxes isn't the answer. Cutting spending is.

[kalm]

Remember this - if you take EVERYTHING that those on the Forbes 400 list has you can't even balance the budget for one year. Raising taxes isn't the answer. Cutting spending is.

Gross over-simplification (even for me )

You're assuming that those on the Forbes 400 list or the corporations who bare WAY less of the tax burden than they use to also don't benefit from government spending.

We have had low taxes now for 30 years and many of the same people bitching about spending are benefiting from that spending.

It would be interesting to compare historical effective tax rates and revenue vs. increases in spending. Spending needs to be cut for sure, but raising taxes for the sake of fiscal responsibility might help too.

[kalm]

Remember this - if you take EVERYTHING that those on the Forbes 400 list has you can't even balance the budget for one year. Raising taxes isn't the answer. Cutting spending is.

There are multiple fouls now on this thread.

Again, we applied trickle down economics through 2007. How'd that all work out?

[death dealer]

Great line, but how do you propose we eliminate or stop politics from encroachng on government?

You just gotta believe Ganny!

[89Hen]

It often can, bluebee, if you take a balanced look at it. Politics is the enemy, not government.

I guess you haven't seen it first hand? Mrs89 worked for the Feds for 14 years. The amount of waste, red tape, employees who do nothing is incomprehensible.

[ASUG8]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a780LGWG7to[/youtube]

[DSUrocks07]

Remember this - if you take EVERYTHING that those on the Forbes 400 list has you can't even balance the budget for one year. Raising taxes isn't the answer. Cutting spending is.

Gross over-simplification (even for me )

You're assuming that those on the Forbes 400 list or the corporations who bare WAY less of the tax burden than they use to also don't benefit from government spending.

We have had low taxes now for 30 years and many of the same people bitching about spending are benefiting from that spending.

It would be interesting to compare historical effective tax rates and revenue vs. increases in spending. Spending needs to be cut for sure, but raising taxes for the sake of fiscal responsibility might help too.

Taxes were fine back prior to 2000, remember when the national debt was decreasing to the point where they covered up that "debt clock"? But now "progressives" are wanting to go back to the 1950s tax code....but only for the rich tho.

Also, HI5 was referring to the combined net worth of those on the Forbes 400, would that be enough to cover this year's expenses ($3.8 trillion), that some here believe STILL isn't enough government spending.

[DSUrocks07]

There are multiple fouls now on this thread.

Again, we applied trickle down economics through 2007. How'd that all work out?

Sounds like it was working just fine until America elected a big government statist to office with the promise of tax cuts across the board.

http://web.archive.org/web/200801291448 ... ebt.clock/

Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore has outlined a plan that he says would eliminate the debt by 2012.

Senior economic advisers to Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush agree with the principle of paying down the debt but have not committed to a specific date for eliminating it.

[HI54UNI]

Remember this - if you take EVERYTHING that those on the Forbes 400 list has you can't even balance the budget for one year. Raising taxes isn't the answer. Cutting spending is.

Gross over-simplification (even for me )

You're assuming that those on the Forbes 400 list or the corporations who bare WAY less of the tax burden than they use to also don't benefit from government spending.

We have had low taxes now for 30 years and many of the same people bitching about spending are benefiting from that spending.

It would be interesting to compare historical effective tax rates and revenue vs. increases in spending. Spending needs to be cut for sure, but raising taxes for the sake of fiscal responsibility might help too.

No, what I'm saying is our govt spends about 3 trillion a year and has a 1 trillion annual deficit. The Forbes 400 list is worth about 1 trillion. So if we put 100% wealth tax on the uber rich and take everything they have plus combine it with the govt's other revenue we can almost have a balanced budget for 1 year. What are we going to do the next year when we've already taken 100% of the wealth of the Forbes 400? The next 400 aren't worth what the first 400 are. Go to the next 1000? 2000? When does it end?

We need to cut spending.

[Chizzang]

I guess you haven't seen it first hand? Mrs89 worked for the Feds for 14 years. The amount of waste, red tape, employees who do nothing is incomprehensible.

This ^

The military has this problem as well
My father was in the Army for 20 years and frequently pointed out that 50% of the military does NOTHING
and he wasn't being sarcastic... quite literally ZERO productivity from 1/2

[D1B]

I guess you haven't seen it first hand? Mrs89 worked for the Feds for 14 years. The amount of waste, red tape, employees who do nothing is incomprehensible.

This ^

The military has this problem as well
My father was in the Army for 20 years and frequently pointed out that 50% of the military does NOTHING
and he wasn't being sarcastic... quite literally ZERO productivity from 1/2

Government work = welfare

*At least half the asshole conks here either work for the government or derive a majority of their income from government workers (89Hen).

[Grizalltheway]

This ^

The military has this problem as well
My father was in the Army for 20 years and frequently pointed out that 50% of the military does NOTHING
and he wasn't being sarcastic... quite literally ZERO productivity from 1/2

Government work = welfare

*At least half the asshole conks here either work for the government or derive a majority of their income from government workers (89Hen).

Col Hogan, CID90, I think St. Wronge did at one point...

[89Hen]

This ^

The military has this problem as well
My father was in the Army for 20 years and frequently pointed out that 50% of the military does NOTHING
and he wasn't being sarcastic... quite literally ZERO productivity from 1/2

Government work = welfare

*At least half the asshole conks here either work for the government or derive a majority of their income from government workers (89Hen).

Damn skippy and most of the workers are donks. Go figure.

[CID1990]

Um... I'm Chizzang
and yes I am the only one who realized you were being sarcastic

I know, and thank you.

You need to practice your sarcasm, then. Not everybody here is Albert Fvckoff Einstein like Chizz

[Chizzang]

This ^

The military has this problem as well
My father was in the Army for 20 years and frequently pointed out that 50% of the military does NOTHING
and he wasn't being sarcastic... quite literally ZERO productivity from 1/2

Government work = welfare

*At least half the asshole conks here either work for the government or derive a majority of their income from government workers (89Hen).

All the nit-picking aside
Nobody here will seriously debate the legitimacy of the claim:

a) 50% of our Military employees provide NOTHING and PRODUCE nothing

sadly it's a well known widely accepted / as True but No solution...