Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/16/news/ec ... lionaires/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The millionaires want Congress to allow the tax cuts passed during the George W. Bush administration to expire. Some want higher taxes generally.

They planned to push lawmakers to reject any deal that the so-called super committee delivers that doesn't raise taxes on millionaires. The 12-lawmaker panel has until next Wednesday to agree on $1.2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years or risk automatic spending cuts.

"If the super committee bill doesn't raise our taxes, we will ask our fellow citizens to consider killing the bill," said Eric Schoenberg of Franklin Lakes, N.J., an adjunct professor of marketing at Columbia Business School

California venture capitalist Garrett Gruener, founder of Ask.com, told left-leaning House members on the Progressive Caucus said he doesn't buy the argument that hiking the tax rates for the wealthy and forcing them to pay more in taxes would stymie business growth.

"Not once have any of my personal investment decisions been a function of marginal tax rates," Gruener said. "We just don't think about it."

Discuss. A small group indeed, however, they mingle with other wealthy individuals and it is probably a safe bet to say this isn't a "fringe" group.

Ibanez wrote:Discuss. A small group indeed, however, they mingle with other wealthy individuals and it is probably a safe bet to say this isn't a "fringe" group.

Wouldn't a small group be a fringe group? Anyway, nothing new here... the super rich can afford to not care if they pay more in taxes. AFAIK, you are always welcome to pay as much as you like.

Ibanez wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/16/news/ec ... lionaires/

The millionaires want Congress to allow the tax cuts passed during the George W. Bush administration to expire. Some want higher taxes generally.

They planned to push lawmakers to reject any deal that the so-called super committee delivers that doesn't raise taxes on millionaires. The 12-lawmaker panel has until next Wednesday to agree on $1.2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years or risk automatic spending cuts.

"If the super committee bill doesn't raise our taxes, we will ask our fellow citizens to consider killing the bill," said Eric Schoenberg of Franklin Lakes, N.J., an adjunct professor of marketing at Columbia Business School

California venture capitalist Garrett Gruener, founder of Ask.com, told left-leaning House members on the Progressive Caucus said he doesn't buy the argument that hiking the tax rates for the wealthy and forcing them to pay more in taxes would stymie business growth.

"Not once have any of my personal investment decisions been a function of marginal tax rates," Gruener said. "We just don't think about it."

Discuss. A small group indeed, however, they mingle with other wealthy individuals and it is probably a safe bet to say this isn't a "fringe" group.

If there's a buck to be made, someone will make it. If hiring someone can make you more money after you pay them, then you will hire. We have a demand problem. Conks seem to really struggle with that notion.

89Hen wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Discuss. A small group indeed, however, they mingle with other wealthy individuals and it is probably a safe bet to say this isn't a "fringe" group.

Wouldn't a small group be a fringe group? Anyway, nothing new here... the super rich can afford to not care if they pay more in taxes. AFAIK, you are always welcome to pay as much as you like.

If they want to pay extra taxes go right ahead, its still not going to solve anything...also, notice that the term "personal investment decisions" was used.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-tax-plan-targ ... 10390.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another Republican tax plan. Penalize the middle class and make the biggest cuts on the top marginal rate.
Their fetishism of the "producer" class never ceases to amaze. Thank you Miss Rand.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/patri ... -up-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ibanez wrote:Discuss. A small group indeed, however, they mingle with other wealthy individuals and it is probably a safe bet to say this isn't a "fringe" group.

Silly statement by this group.

If a small group of millionaires wants to give more money back to the government, they can. What in the world is preventing them from doing so? Just go ahead and empty their coffers to the tune of what they want to give over and above the government tax limit. Problem solved.

Instead, they want to feel important by holding a press conference and claiming to speak for everyone else in their group so the government can force the others to follow their wishes.

Cluck U wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Discuss. A small group indeed, however, they mingle with other wealthy individuals and it is probably a safe bet to say this isn't a "fringe" group.

Silly statement by this group.

If a small group of millionaires wants to give more money back to the government, they can. What in the world is preventing them from doing so? Just go ahead and empty their coffers to the tune of what they want to give over and above the government tax limit. Problem solved.

Instead, they want to feel important by holding a press conference and claiming to speak for everyone else in their group so the government can force the others to follow their wishes.

Voluntary contributions won't make a dent. They would truly be suckers for doing that. What's wrong with holding on to your cash while advocating for change? I might rail against government bailouts and subsidies, but if some came my direction I wouldn't turn them down. Does that make me a hypocrite? Perhaps, but I want to win. Michelle Bachman is the the head of the congressional Tea Party caucus and rails constantly against big government and unnecessary spending. Doesn't keep her from welcoming subsidies for her family farm and her husbands cure the gay clinic. We're all hypocrites in one way or the other. The suckers are the ones not taking full advantage of the system.

My opinion is we need a decrease is spending and increase in revenue, note that I didn't say taxes. It's painfully obvious, but politically, it's a career killer.

Can't we just put a line on the tax return (if it's not there already) that people can write in how much extra they want to pay, and then all these millionaires that swear they would love to pay more in taxes can go ahead and do so? All this posturing in public while then behind the scenes working both parties to make sure it never happens just comes across as pretty hollow. Let's get the donation line onto the tax form and then I'm sure all these folks will write big checks to Uncle Sam. Super.

GannonFan wrote:Can't we just put a line on the tax return (if it's not there already) that people can write in how much extra they want to pay, and then all these millionaires that swear they would love to pay more in taxes can go ahead and do so? All this posturing in public while then behind the scenes working both parties to make sure it never happens just comes across as pretty hollow. Let's get the donation line onto the tax form and then I'm sure all these folks will write big checks to Uncle Sam. Super.

So again, it's impossible to walk and chew gum? Is it ok if I voice concerns over air pollution and a more sustainable energy future for my sons while I continue to drive my Tundra?

Ibanez wrote:My opinion is we need a decrease is spending and increase in revenue, note that I didn't say taxes. It's painfully obvious, but politically, it's a career killer.

Which WON'T happen with the current political climate. Apparently they are mutually exclusive

Side note: Wasn't the whole idea behind the "Bush Tax Cuts" was that the revenues was SO MUCH HIGHER than the expenses and we could "afford" it?

Cluck U wrote:What in the world is preventing them from doing so? Just go ahead and empty their coffers to the tune of what they want to give over and above the government tax limit. Problem solved.

Maybe if we sent then a pre-addressed and stamped envelope.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Can't we just put a line on the tax return (if it's not there already) that people can write in how much extra they want to pay, and then all these millionaires that swear they would love to pay more in taxes can go ahead and do so? All this posturing in public while then behind the scenes working both parties to make sure it never happens just comes across as pretty hollow. Let's get the donation line onto the tax form and then I'm sure all these folks will write big checks to Uncle Sam. Super.

So again, it's impossible to walk and chew gum? Is it ok if I voice concerns over air pollution and a more sustainable energy future for my sons while I continue to drive my Tundra?

Sure, you can do that, but all you're doing is to help stall the progress you claim to want. The fact that so many Americans purchased so many SUV's in the '80s and '90's pretty much slowed down efforts to develop high mpg cars and mpg standards for years. No one was going to do anything about better mileage while car companies were making great margins on selling SUV's and while the public was obviously happy buying and using them. Your actions, while minor in the grand scheme of things, can clearly add up to impediments to other things you want if enough people are just like you and do the same thing.

Besides, your metaphor doesn't work well - walking and chewing gum are entirely separate, non-connected things (at least for the coordinated among us). A more apt metaphor would be can't you smoke cigarettes for your whole life and still avoid lung cancer? Sure you can, but your actions could end up preventing your desire to be cancer-free.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
So again, it's impossible to walk and chew gum? Is it ok if I voice concerns over air pollution and a more sustainable energy future for my sons while I continue to drive my Tundra?

Sure, you can do that, but all you're doing is to help stall the progress you claim to want. The fact that so many Americans purchased so many SUV's in the '80s and '90's pretty much slowed down efforts to develop high mpg cars and mpg standards for years. No one was going to do anything about better mileage while car companies were making great margins on selling SUV's and while the public was obviously happy buying and using them. Your actions, while minor in the grand scheme of things, can clearly add up to impediments to other things you want if enough people are just like you and do the same thing.

Besides, your metaphor doesn't work well - walking and chewing gum are entirely separate, non-connected things (at least for the coordinated among us). A more apt metaphor would be can't you smoke cigarettes for your whole life and still avoid lung cancer? Sure you can, but your actions could end up preventing your desire to be cancer-free.

I'm learning from Z, so thank you.

If rich folks won't check the box to allocate three bucks of their taxes to fund elections, they sure won't pay more in taxes. It's all a lot of hokum. Barry makes the same sweeping claims -- tax me more because I've written successful books and made a lot of money -- but I'll bet he and Michelle haven't paid one red cent more than they have to.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Sure, you can do that, but all you're doing is to help stall the progress you claim to want. The fact that so many Americans purchased so many SUV's in the '80s and '90's pretty much slowed down efforts to develop high mpg cars and mpg standards for years. No one was going to do anything about better mileage while car companies were making great margins on selling SUV's and while the public was obviously happy buying and using them. Your actions, while minor in the grand scheme of things, can clearly add up to impediments to other things you want if enough people are just like you and do the same thing.

Besides, your metaphor doesn't work well - walking and chewing gum are entirely separate, non-connected things (at least for the coordinated among us). A more apt metaphor would be can't you smoke cigarettes for your whole life and still avoid lung cancer? Sure you can, but your actions could end up preventing your desire to be cancer-free.

I'm learning from Z, so thank you.

You've got a lot to learn, grasshoppa.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm learning from Z, so thank you.

You've got a lot to learn, grasshoppa.

True! My analogies are only kind of shitty. I'll try harder.

What we need is a complete change in the paradigm with respect to the role of government. Get rid of the idea that government is responsible for ensuring the well being of each individual. That would allow cutting back on what government spends by more than half.

No more Social Security. No more Medicare. No more Medicaid. No more "Social Programs." No more attempting to ensure that everyone has enough to eat. No more attempting to ensure that everyone has shelter. And for sure no more attempting to ensure that everyone has medical care.

Government shouldn't be doing those things. It should be setting up the basic framework to allow people to pursue such things as a survivable retirement, food, shelter, and medical care for themselves. And that's it.

JohnStOnge wrote:What we need is a complete change in the paradigm with respect to the role of government. Get rid of the idea that government is responsible for ensuring the well being of each individual. That would allow cutting back on what government spends by more than half.

No more Social Security. No more Medicare. No more Medicaid. No more "Social Programs." No more attempting to ensure that everyone has enough to eat. No more attempting to ensure that everyone has shelter. And for sure no more attempting to ensure that everyone has medical care.

Government shouldn't be doing those things. It should be setting up the basic framework to allow people to pursue such things as a survivable retirement, food, shelter, and medical care for themselves. And that's it.

Are you making these changes cold turkey? Or is it done in stages, over time?

Are you making these changes cold turkey? Or is it done in stages, over time?

I guess I would be fine with doing it in stages as long as it is recognized that the idea that government can ensure each individual's well being is not sustainable and has to be rejected.

But I am not that far from being "Social Security" and "Medicare" aged and I would support saying those programs will be phased out before I get there. Some generation is going to have to be willing to do that.

Now...what I'd really like with Social Security is for government to just say they're going tp pay everybody back what they've paid into it minus whatever they've already received. I think that's mean about $80,000 for me and odds are that's less than they're going to spend on me after I retire. I honestly think it'd cost less in the long run just to say, "OK. The program is over. We're going to pay everybody what they put into it back. No interest. No inflation adjustment. But we'll pay it back."

JohnStOnge wrote:

Are you making these changes cold turkey? Or is it done in stages, over time?

I guess I would be fine with doing it in stages as long as it is recognized that the idea that government can ensure each individual's well being is not sustainable and has to be rejected.

But I am not that far from being "Social Security" and "Medicare" aged and I would support saying those programs will be phased out before I get there. Some generation is going to have to be willing to do that.

Now...what I'd really like with Social Security is for government to just say they're going tp pay everybody back what they've paid into it minus whatever they've already received. I think that's mean about $80,000 for me and odds are that's less than they're going to spend on me after I retire. I honestly think it'd cost less in the long run just to say, "OK. The program is over. We're going to pay everybody what they put into it back. No interest. No inflation adjustment. But we'll pay it back."

I couldn't disagree more. Remove the safety net and our economy will grind to a halt. People will be afraid to invest and spend if they have to worry that they could be without an income at any time without warning.

I would love to live in a place where everyone earned an honest living and paid their way, but it's not realistic. We need to find a way to put people to work and prevent people from taking advantage of the system, but there are people who truly need help and we shouldn't cut them off.

Also, what do you do to the people that don't have money or an income? Do you let them starve? What about their kids?

This whole argument is stupid.

If the Bush tax cuts expire, I will be paying more taxes and keeping less of my paycheck, and I am not a millionaire who can afford to absorb that.

Congress is about to cut 16% of my pay anyway, so I would really like to hang on to as much of that as possible.

Guys like this are fvcktard cockmonkeys suggesting that my taxes go back up. They are more than capable of writing a check to the US government. This is nothing more than a bullsh1t stunt.