Quantcast

Comments about ‘On second thought ...’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 23 2012 6:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Esquire
Springville, UT

I'm sorry, but this is just pathetic.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"Both proposals promised to raise about $47 billion in revenue. The budget deficit is more than $1 trillion. This is like a family that owes thousands in credit card debt arguing over whether Johnny should get a paper route or mow lawns to bring in an extra $5 a week."

First of all which proposal would actually raise 47 billion..for sure? Cutting taxes in a demand driven recession..doubt seriously that's going to reach it's goal.

Secondly though, please tell me who ever said that rasing taxes on the rich would pay off the debt? Jay you act as though if an action doesn't pay off the whole debt it's an unworthy idea..especially revenue ideas.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Raising taxes on the rich (aka letting the Bush tax cuts expire) makes so much sense....

which is exactly why repubs are against it.

More tea anyone? Or have we had enough to throw these bums out already?

Do-nothing Congress, Norquist anti-tax increase pledges for the rich while supporting them on the poor and middle-class, (which even prevent closing loopholes), no compromising, support to cut funding in education and aid to students, corporations are people too, no cuts to defense spending but even further increases, need I go on?

Get the tea party out. Get some real leaders in who know that compromise is essential to getting things done.

And btw, throw out EVERYONE who has made a pledge to anyone and anything other than the Constitution.

one old man
Ogden, UT

"An effort to just make people feel good ???????"

Nothing about basic fairness here. While DN decries playground bullies, they fully support wealthy bullies.

Makes sense I guess. But only if you're delusional.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The tax cut was projected to increase the deficit by 47 billion, not decrease it.

Black Knight
American Fork, UT

I always look forward to Jay's column each Monday morning. This was one of his best, as is evidenced by complaints from some of the usual leftists/socialists that frequent these threads.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

Somewhere in Jay's remarks should be the words of a rich person speaking frankly: "Our lobbyists knocked the stuffings out of theirs on the tax deal. We beat 'em fair and square, and they aren't getting this reversed, president or no president, just by whining about who pays what. Lobbyists don't come cheap, you know. Either get your own rainmakers and be prepared to make some offers, or deal with it."

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

The left-wing liberals would like to turn this Country into a welfare state in which the vast majority of income is taxed away from the people and then a portion is returned as entitlement program "gifts". Anyone with any sense need only look at the failed states of Eurohupe to see that this plan is doomed to certain failure.

What the left is doing is no different than the feudal lords who took nearly everything, and then demanded praise for their benevolence when they gave a small portion back. The ignorant serfs fell for this plot, and gave much thanks and praise when the feudal lords passed out small morsels in an arbitrary manner.

It is time for the ignorant masses to awaken and see this deception for what it is. Hopefully, this will occur before it is too late.

JMHO
Southern, UT

All of you above that want higher taxes can pay them. Fill out the 1040 EZ form. As for me, I try to reduce my taxes. Why shouldn't a rich person reduce theirs? Oh it's great to say that some rich guy should pay more. How about this, the people who pay nothing or get refundable credits need to pay something. There should be a minimum tax burden of say $100 dollars for every adult with a job. That would make a difference. What we have now with refundable credits is people not only getting away with paying nothing, but they get money back too.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Why do so many of the 99% continue to defend and protect the excesses of the 1%.....

one old man
Ogden, UT

The right-wing conservatives would like to turn this Country into a welfare state in which the vast majority of income is stolen by the people of wealth and power and then a portion is returned to the less wealthy as obligations to pay excessive bank fees and absorb losses resulting from recessions or loss of health care due to pre-existing condtions. Anyone with any sense need only look at the failed programs of the Republican Party to see that this plan is doomed to certain failure.

What the right is doing is no different than the feudal lords who took nearly everything, and then demanded praise for their benevolence when they gave a small portion back to gullible Tea drinkers. The ignorant serfs fell for this plot, and gave much thanks and praise when the feudal lords passed out small morsels in an arbitrary manner.

It is time for the ignorant masses of radio talk show listeners to awaken and see this deception for what it is. Hopefully, this will occur before it is too late.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@JMHO
"As for me, I try to reduce my taxes."

Because you're greedy. With deficits as massive as we are, you think you're entitled to paying even less and just passing on the bills to future generations. You know what, I'll voluntarily pay more in taxes... when you conservatives voluntarily give up gov't services. I won't hold my breath.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

To LDS Liberal: "Why do so many of the 99% continue to defend and protect the excesses of the 1%....."

Answer: Because many of the 99% are not consumed by envy towards the 1%. We are not all convinced that they all got that way by lying, cheating, and stealing. In fact, we would like to join them some day by working hard and innovating. We want to keep the American dream alive. If and when we reach the 1%, we don't want all our rewards taken away by others. We would rather have the freedom to choose what to do with the money we earned.

The 1% pay a huge portion of their money to the state. Sure they could afford to pay more without having to stand in bread lines, but why should they when they already carry such a large portion of the tax burden.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

to Joe Cap2 - By "large portion of the tax burden" do you mean Mitt's 14% off a $20 million plus income? That puts you in car elevator territory my friend.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

to Mark B - Compared with the nearly half of Americans who pay ZERO federal income tax, yes Mitt's 14% is a much bigger portion. That comes to nearly $3 million in taxes.

The only reason Mitt was able to pay that low of a rate compared to most other high-income earners is because nearly all his income was investment income instead of wages. Investment income is taxed at a lower rate. If he had earned $20 million as the CEO of a company instead, he would have paid more taxes.

As for what he chooses to do with HIS money, I don't care. If he wants to have a car elevator that is fine with me. If Michael Jordan wants to buy a solid gold bathtub, who am I to object? If Tiger Woods wants 50 sports cars, why should I care? They all earned their money and they should be able to enjoy it any way they see fit.

It sounds like you are one of those who are "consumed by envy".

Mark B
Eureka, CA

Yes, investment income is taxed at a lower rate than wages and salaries. How do you suppose this came to be? Poor people can't get any use from this tax break because they have little or no investment income. That means that this whole arrangement was no doubt cooked up by someone with plenty of cash stashed away.

What I keep hearing from the right is that we just don't have enough to fill all our needs - for health care, for education or anything else. But the very same people are pounding the drums to make it EASIER for rich folks to do whatever they do with money. My feeling is that if there is a shortage, that what we DO have should be directed to the cause of helping children of all backgrounds grow into healthy, well-educated taxpayers. More, better, better-functioning schools - yes. More car elevators made possible by public largesse - not so much.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

Mark B: The sky in your world is obviously a different colour than the sky in my world.

Mitt Romney's car elevator (whatever that is) was not "made possible by public largesse". He invested his money and earned income on those investments. The federal government took away 14% of his income last year which left him 86%. I'm sure he had lots of other taxes to pay besides just federal income tax, but in any case he had enough left over to buy this thing that bugs you so much.

So...how much money should the government be able to take away from Mitt so that he can no longer afford his car elevator? 98%? 99%? Apparently anything less than 100% would be "public largesse".

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments