Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 65

Thread: Its time for republican to concede a bit

  1. #10
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,966

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    I can not get over the fact that the government caused the problem, but they want "rich" people to pay for it. Government spending on both sides of the aisle caused this. Donald Trump or Warren Buffet aren't the reason we are in debt, so why should they have to pay for it? Saying that is "only fair" is ridiculous IMO. I think it is only fair to tax everyone the same rate, including businesses, and spend within your means.

    Medicare, Medicaid, SS and welfare all need to be addressed, too. Grandfather some people in medicare, medicaid and SS. Pick an age or date of birth for a cut off and be done with it. Welfare should only last like unemployment. After that I think charity will help a lot more and I also believe people will try to work instead of just taking the check.

    I know it sounds crazy but that's how we did it for a couple hundred years and it seemed to work just as well as handouts.
    What makes you think that worked out well for a couple of hundred years?

  2. #11
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,966

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by FloggingSully View Post
    We're currently borrowing 40 cents per every dollar spent, a 3% increase (or letting a 3% cut expire) would barely register as a drop in the bucket.
    This is what I have heard:
    Fareed Zakaria - To deal with the deficit, let the tax cuts expire

    The "Bush tax cuts," passed in 2001 and 2003, remain the single largest cause of America's structural deficit -- that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenue when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs: the tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug bill and post-9/11 security spending (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts.

  3. #12

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by FloggingSully View Post
    We're currently borrowing 40 cents per every dollar spent, a 3% increase (or letting a 3% cut expire) would barely register as a drop in the bucket.
    It's a drop in the bucket for the nation but a bigger hit to the individual, so why not let them keep it?

  4. #13

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    It's a drop in the bucket for the nation but a bigger hit to the individual, so why not let them keep it?
    I don't see why not, as long as you're ok with passing the buck to the next generation.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  5. #14

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    What makes you think that worked out well for a couple of hundred years?
    Well, we were the youngest of all countries and rose to be the most successful and powerful. People in the middle east and Africa (the oldest countries) are still living in mud huts and riding camels. How's their health care plan? Europe is collapsing under socialist type ideas of "shared sacrifice". It's just human nature. Give someone something and they will ask for more. Make them earn something and they will cherish it. If you've ever bought a kid a car instead of making them earn the money, then you know the difference on a small scale. If you know the government will help your neighbor by giving them money, you won't invest in them. If you know the government won't, then as a human being, you probably will because no one wants to see another suffer. I am positive that people helping their own communities is better than a faceless check or food card. Even those getting the help appreciate it more and in their own way give back to you.

    I believe in the human spirit not the government.

  6. #15

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    I can not get over the fact that the government caused the problem, but they want "rich" people to pay for it. Government spending on both sides of the aisle caused this. Donald Trump or Warren Buffet aren't the reason we are in debt, so why should they have to pay for it? Saying that is "only fair" is ridiculous IMO. I think it is only fair to tax everyone the same rate, including businesses, and spend within your means.

    Medicare, Medicaid, SS and welfare all need to be addressed, too. Grandfather some people in medicare, medicaid and SS. Pick an age or date of birth for a cut off and be done with it. Welfare should only last like unemployment. After that I think charity will help a lot more and I also believe people will try to work instead of just taking the check.

    I know it sounds crazy but that's how we did it for a couple hundred years and it seemed to work just as well as handouts.
    This is extremely misleading, no debt reduction plan will not be primarily driven by spending cuts that almost exclusively affect poor people who already have been suffering in this country. It's not politically viable to have revenue increases account for any more than 33% of debt reduction plan and it will probably be even less than that. If we end the Bush tax cuts that's not making "rich people pay for it," millionaires are not spending the 4.6% tax cut that they've received anyway, so it hasn't helped matters. I'm sure some of you would argue that business confidence and job creation justify lower taxes, etc so let's not get into that too much because it will keep going back and forth. However, there is a serious misconception about how much rich people are actually paying - Warren Buffett pays a lower effective income tax than his secretary!! The Top 10 hedge fund managers average $1.75 Billion per year and only pay 15% in taxes, the average American family would need to work 35,217 yrs to earn as much. You really think that system just needs a few tweaks in the tax code? The bottom line is that rich people have increased their wealth over the last 10 years, middle class people have remained stagnant and poor people have become worse off. Even under current law, the richest 400 Americans paid an effective personal income tax rate in 2008 of only 17.8%, that's not anywhere remotely approaching shared sacrifice.
    Last edited by bwh27; 07-06-2011 at 01:17 PM.

  7. #16

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by bwh27 View Post
    This is extremely misleading, no debt reduction plan will not be primarily driven by spending cuts that almost exclusively affect poor people who already have been suffering in this country. It's not politically viable to have revenue increases account for any more than 33% of debt reduction plan and it will probably be even less than that. If we end the Bush tax cuts that's not making "rich people pay for it," millionaires are not spending the 4.6% tax cut that they've received anyway, so it hasn't helped matters. I'm sure some of you would argue that business confidence and job creation justify lower taxes, etc so let's not get into that too much because it will keep going back and forth. However, there is a serious misconception about how much rich people are actually paying - Warren Buffett pays a lower effective income tax than his secretary!! The Top 10 hedge fund managers average $1.75 Billion per year and only pay 15% in taxes, the average American family would need to work 35,217 yrs to earn as much. You really think that system just needs a few tweaks in the tax code? The bottom line is that rich people have increased their wealth over the last 10 years, middle class people have remained stagnant and poor people have become worse off. Even under current law, the richest 400 Americans paid an effective personal income tax rate in 2008 of only 17.8%, that's not anywhere remotely approaching shared sacrifice.
    I am not trying to say that the rich don't keep getting richer and the poor remain poor. What I am saying is that you shouldn't punish the rich for working hard. It would be nice to share, but they shouldn't be made too. And how is Obama's idea of not letting people or businesses deduct charitable contributions helping anything? All that means is that they will quit giving the money. If the true reason for higher taxes and charity is that it be given to the poor, then why tax those deductions?

    And who in there right mind thinks that the government won't misspend the extra money they might generate from punishing the rich? All they are going to do is waste it. That has been proven for so many years that an argument against it sounds ridiculous. If we are all created equal under the law and our constitution, then arbitrarily taxing some more than others makes people not equal. Doesn't matter what dollar figure you put on it. We should all pay the same percentage no matter how much we make. It's only fair.

  8. #17

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    I'm in the top 2 or 3% of wage earners, and I feel like I pay more than my share of taxes. I'm not a millionaire, I have two kids and a wife, a semi-large house, etc and I put the majority of my money (after taxes) right back into circulation. That's not enough? Is the best solution really for the Feds take more of my money to pay for bloated social programs?

    The problem with our current tax structure is that it's to the point where a very small percentage of earners pay a huge majority of taxes. Make fun of "the rich" all you want, but the mob mentality of "take their money to pay for things" isn't really what America should be all about. If I was "fortunate" enough to have money fall into my lap from above, then maybe my point of view would be different.

    We need to cut spending, including cutting sacred-cow entitlements.

  9. #18

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    I am not trying to say that the rich don't keep getting richer and the poor remain poor. What I am saying is that you shouldn't punish the rich for working hard. It would be nice to share, but they shouldn't be made too. And how is Obama's idea of not letting people or businesses deduct charitable contributions helping anything? All that means is that they will quit giving the money. If the true reason for higher taxes and charity is that it be given to the poor, then why tax those deductions?

    And who in there right mind thinks that the government won't misspend the extra money they might generate from punishing the rich? All they are going to do is waste it. That has been proven for so many years that an argument against it sounds ridiculous. If we are all created equal under the law and our constitution, then arbitrarily taxing some more than others makes people not equal. Doesn't matter what dollar figure you put on it. We should all pay the same percentage no matter how much we make. It's only fair.
    But in this particular context the whole "misspending the extra money" argument isn't relevant since we're talking about a debt reduction plan. Tax increases probably will not account for more than 25% of the plan (Repubs in Congress want it to be 0%) which means that decreased spending accounts for at least 75% of the debt reduction. Therefore, those tax increases aren't going toward government handouts, they're going toward reducing the deficit.

    We're never going to resolve this issue, since we obviously have differing ideologies, but I really do not understand the whole "punishing the rich for working hard" argument either. The idea that hedge fund managers have worked so much harder than middle class people just doesn't hold water, yet they make 100-10k times more money. Following that line of logic, billionaires work thousands of times harder than middle class people many of whom actually work longer hours. There is no causative relationship between intelligence and income, nor have I ever seen strong evidence that ultra rich people work harder than other Americans. In many cases, rich people work more ruthlessly than others to get ahead (eg Bill Gates, Zuckerberg) but how is that helping our economy, especially someone in the financial industry who make more money by deceiving others?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •