It has been suggested that there are three departments that could easily be
eliminated with very minimal effects to the population. End the Depts. of
Energy, Education, and Commerce. Prices would adjust, but market forces would
move people to more efficient means of production.
I am no economist, and the opinion piece writer is not one as well. However, my
common sense tells me that reducing already low tax rates on the already
incredibly wealthy will not have any effect on my economic well being nor the
others who have less than do me. What could Bill Gates of Microsoft do with
more after tax income? Or his heirs? Or his heir's heirs?It
is certainly true that our government can be cranky and inefficient, but just
which part of our government do we plan to dismantle? I think we should get rid
of 50% or more of the defense department. Others will argue that old age income
support mechanisms (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) are bloated. Still
others will argue to stop spending money on the indigent. I don't hear
anyone, left or right, that advocates cutting their spending priorities.And lastly, even if we did cut spending, why should we cut taxes? We
collectively bought a bunch of shiny weapons, gave granny her allowance and
doled out a few bucks for food to those awful minimum wage Walmart employees.
Now we don't want to pay the tab.
When will the left-wing learn that money does not grow on trees? Any dollar that
the government gives to one person is a dollar that was taken from another. Those who are wealthy are those who worked hard to obtain the education
and skills necessary to earn a good salary. They deserve to have more wealth
than those who chose to drop out of school and work fast food jobs.If the government takes from those who work hard and gives to the lazy and
slothful, it will destroy the incentive to work at all. Who will the government
tax then, when no one works and everyone sits around waiting for a handout?
Tax them - or else!THAT's how it was when America was at it's
peak.If the wealthy hoarded their money, and did not reinvest
into the economy -- they got hit, and Hard!If they invested -- [higher pay, newest equipment, hired new employees, etc., etc.] - they
got tax breaks, tax shelters, and tax deductions.The alternative was
to just hand it over to the Government via the IRS, and have the
Government invest it FOR them.
We already tax the wealthy. The question should be... "Will taxing the
wealthy MORE... and more and more and more... help the economy or ruin
it"?It's a good question.I suspect making
everybody poor would not HELP the economy. It would help the government.... but
not the economy.The government doesn't run the economy folks...
we do...When you work... you drive the economy. When you buy
stuff... you drive the economy. When you build houses, get loans, all that
consumer stuff... we drive the economy.The economy is driven by the
masses... not the government OR the wealthy.
Not only will it not fix it, even if it did that doesn't mean we should do
it. Stealing from my rich neighbor would "fix" my personal economics,
but that hardly means its the way to go.I would be lazy and a thief
if I thought I could demand my neighbor pay for my share of government
resources.He and I use probably roughly the same amount of
government resources, even though he makes a lot more money than I do. Just
because he makes a lot more doesn't mean that barack is spending more money
because of that. So it would be lazy and irresponsible of me to
suggest that he pay for my share of what I'm using.
If you look at the history of the highest tax rates, you can easily see how much
they have plummeted since the Eisenhower Administration, a time of prosperity
when we had a low deficits, and occasional surpluses, fought the cold war, and
built the interstate highway system. The highest tax rate then was over 90
percent.Since then, the higher tax rates have roughly coincided with
economic prosperity. We fought a war, and went to the moon, AND had a budget
surplus in 1969.The exceptions to that rule come with changes in oil
prices. Reagan dropped taxes for high earners, and the economy rebounded, but
the REAL reason for the economic rebound is that the price of world oil
plummeted to less than 1/3 the price it had been during the Carter
administration.Since then though, higher taxes correspond to a
better America. Clinton raised taxes and had 4 consecutive budget surpluses. GW
reduced taxes for the highest earners and that corresponded with the miserable
state of affairs he left Obama.What can be concluded is that higher
taxes for high earners corresponds to more responsible governance, that produces
a more successful America.
Like Chris B pointed out... Even if it wouldn't destroy the economy... that
doesn't mean we should we do it!There's a moral question
here too... Do we have the right to confiscate the proceeds of somebody
else's labor?I don't think we do. Even though the left
hates them. Even if some think (like LDS Liberal) that the government is a tool
to be used to hit them... and hit them hard (for not acting the way HE wants
them to).... and that the government's taxing power should be used as a
punitive force (hitting the people HARD when they don't spend their money
the way you or the government wants)... It's not the proper role of
Government (IMO). And it's not a moral thing to do. It verges on
Government sponsored "theft" at that point. No different than backing
the same people up against the wall in an alley with a gun and saying "give
me your wallet" (except the government is doing it).Taxes SHOULD
be low (on all of us, not just some of us).But that's just my
Income taxes were prohibited when the Constitution was ratified. The 16th
Amendment changed that. What have we learned about government when government
has the authority to tax us directly? We've learned that government will
buy votes by paying almost half the country NOT to work. We've learned
that government will buy scientific "research" to justify a carbon tax.
We've learned that government will not stop with income tax, but that it
will take another 15% off the top for social security and then "borrow"
those funds so that there is nothing in the social security fund. We've
learned that even when 59% of the people oppose ObamaCare, that the Democrats in
Congress will pass ObamaCare and that the Democrat President will sign it into
law.We've learned that government will never live within its
means, but that it will use our tax dollars to find new ways to tax us.The minimum wage is ludicrous. In a free market system, prices and wages will
self-adjust. When wages go up, prices go up. No one gains. The poor end up
will even less buying power.
The fair tax is not a fair tax.
Well let's see...Tax rates sky high? We saw the greatest
economic boom in history, a surging middle class, and ability to build up our
infrastructure. All during those "socialist" 1950s-60s.What
happened under the decade of Bush's tax cuts?Trillions of debt,
millions of jobs lost, and economic disaster.I keep asking repubs,
where are the jobs? I guess jobs were created from 2000-08 in some fantasy land.
Lowering taxes on the wealthy has proven to lead to more economic disparity and
seems to be ruining the economy.
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service studied decades worth of tax
data and economic growth rates and employment data. They found that higher tax
rates do not, in any way, cause lower growth or unemployment.
May I strongly suggest that no one ever write an op-ed piece about a book that
they clearly have not read. Piketty's evidence-based argument shows that
inherited capital is now expanding to the point that it is choking investment
and economic growth. It's not a question of fairness, or of taxation per
se. It's about the super-wealthy class of heirs and heiresses, people who
are quite specifically not creating jobs or opportunities. Read the book before
Obama has spent 8 trillion and has nothing to show for it and in fact has failed
miserably at every turn and has succeeded at nothing. Explain how giving this
communist more money will improve things if he has already proved that he
can't fix anything .....it was a video...
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTI'm only looking for what is
fair.If the 1% owns 80% of the Wealth, Shouldn't they
then be paying 80% of the taxes?Why should Mitt Romney pay 14% in
taxes, and I have to pay 28% ?He doesn't spend 100% of
his annual income just trying to stay alive.in fact, he propaply spends 1%
to keep his very lavish lifestyle, the other 99% isn't even put into
the economy.So I say tax them, or else.They are killing the
People act as if there's only a limited set of money, and the wealthy are
hoarding it.No! Everyone has an equal amount of opportunity for
wealth.If you keep taxing success,- what motivation would a person
have to become a doctor, dentist, architect, chemist etc? As it is, we're
bringing in 82,000 highly skilled workers from other countries, per year.To improve our economy, lets tax the half of our people who don't
pay federal income tax, and quit punishing the producers.
LDS lib,Its really quite simple."If the 1% owns 80%
of the Wealth, Shouldn't they then be paying 80% of the taxes?Why should Mitt Romney pay 14% in taxes, and I have to pay 28%
?"Like I said, quite simple.You and Mitt
Romney use about the same amount of government resources. barack does not
suddently start spending more money when Mitt Romney makes more money.The real quest is, when you and Mitt(as well as myself) use about the same in
government resources, why are people crying and demanding the rich pay for even
more of our share when Romney is paying millions in taxes and you and I are
paying just a few thousand.Only a lazy person would look at Mitt who
is paying millions in taxes and demand he pay more when we average people are
only paying thousands.Again, barack does not spend more the more
money Mitt makes.So there is no reason Mitt should pay for more -
he's using the same that you and I are.
@Maverick,You seem to see the world through the lenses of a Republican
hater... to the point that you blind yourself to reality.You say the
economy was bad from 2000-08 (because there was a Republican in the White House
I presume). But not factual. During those years... the stock
market hit all-time-highs. Unemployment hit all-time-lows... it was not bad 7
of the 8 years (despite a potentially crippling terrorist attack that cost us
thousands of lives and billions of dollars).The economy did unravel
in 2008... but Tax Cuts didn't caused that. They worked very well (by all
accounts). But bad loans and bank mis-conduct and corporate mismanagement did
impact the economy (not the tax cuts).=== Blaming 2008
on bush tax cuts is intellectually dishonest. I haven't heard a single
economist blame that debacle on low taxes. It was fueled by millions of bad
loans, (which almost killed our banks) and the domino affect on all consumer
driven corporations... Not taxes being too low.===50s
were not fueled by Socialism. We were more anti-socialist then than we are
"Will taxing the wealthy fix the economy or ruin it?"Well,
we've now tried not taxing them for a good long time now, and we know that
doesn't work.Ultimately, the answer is not in taxation and
redistribution; it is in convincing the wealthy to hire more Americans and pay
them better. An even better answer, though, it to encourage, through corporate
tax rates, the transition from our current top-heavy form of corporate ownership
to a system of worker ownership. Then those who actually create the wealth can
share in some of the profits. The tax-and-redistribute argument is
really just a decoy to keep us from noticing that our economy is dominated by
large authoritarian institutions in which people are treated as property.
Don't believe me? Consider what happens when a company is sold. Labor is
one of the largest pieces of the transaction. The workers are sold right along
with the desks and computers.Yes, you are property. We can change
It will do neither. It will help, but when you frame the debate as either
'fix' or 'ruin', it just plays into the divisive environment
we now live in. The economy, and our nation, are way to complex to reduce down
to simple black and white answers.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT50s were not fueled by Socialism.
We were more anti-socialist then than we are now...9:48 a.m. May 21,
2014======== Are you kidding me?MOST U.S. jobs
were Unions jobs in the 1940's - 1970's .The Republicans
have done and excellent job of leap frogging "Socialism" entirely, by funnelling all the wealth to the already wealthy 1%, gutting and
destroying the Middle Class, offshoring and outsourcing American jobs, and importing almost everything from un-taxable COMMUNISTS in Red China!
There is a lot of complaining about how Mitt Romney managed to ONLY pay about
15% of his income in federal taxes. They then point out their own top rate at
28% and cry how that is unfair.There is a difference between
marginal tax rates and effective tax rates. With a flat tax, these two rates
would be the same. With deductions, exemptions, and all kinds of tax allowances
and credits, your effective tax rate will almost always be much lower than your
top tax bracket.No one ever paid those 90%+ top tax rates from 50
years ago. That argument is a red herring.We should all be paying a
flat tax rate of about 15% for all income earned above the poverty line. Get rid
of all the tax deductions and loop holes. Government should easily be able to do
everything it NEEDS to do on that revenue.Unfortunately for
progressives, the government would not be able to do half of the things it WANTS
to do, but then we might have a little more liberty.
@JCS"When will the left-wing learn that money does not grow on trees?
Any dollar that the government gives to one person is a dollar that was taken
from another. "The only reason we're in this wealth
inequality mess (where inequality is similar today to 2007 and 1928, years that
preceded massive collapses in the economy) is because the people in control of
paycheck size have decided over time to keep more for themselves, furthering
said inequality. It's no wonder that the economy is slow to rebound when
demand is so weak and demand is weak when the poor and middle class don't
have as much money to spend.
@2bits"Do we have the right to confiscate the proceeds of somebody
else's labor?"Arguably, a CEO taking massive pay and
bonuses for himself and paying his workers little could be considered
confiscating of the proceeds of somebody else's labor.
@John Charity Spring - Did the Koch Brothers work hard? Or was it rather a
circumstance of the family they were born into? The idea that the uber wealthy
work hard and earn their wealth is greatly exaggerated. The other factor to
consider, is if there were no public investment in education, roads, water,
power, defense, food, police, fire, you get the idea, would any of these folks
been able to become a millionaire?
Re: "Did the Koch Brothers work hard"? Do you think Koch
Industries formed itself... and they just inherited it?Fred C. Koch
started Winkler-Koch Engineering Company in 1927. He didn't inherit it.
He went to MIT and got an education. Then he used that education to develop new
oil extraction processes that revolutionized that industry (and yes... made him
and many others rich). But he didn't inherit anything. His
kids... that's a different story.But not all wealth is
Inherited (as you seem to assume).===It's also a
false-assumption that nobody who's rich ever worked hard. Even if you
inherit a company like this... If you don't work hard... it eventually
failes (we've seen that happen plenty of times, father builds successful
company, puts kids in charge... it goes broke).====We
need to get over this idea that TAXES drive the economy. Taxes don't drive
the economy... they drive the Government. They are 2 separate things.Raising taxes doesn't HELP the economy (it helps the Government).Lowering taxes helps the economy (not the Government). That's
"No! Everyone has an equal amount of opportunity for wealth."False statement. Completely. To presume somehow the world is a level playing
field is preposterous at best. The playing field in many aspects is more flat
than ever, but not everyone has access to the same opportunity as others. The whole discussion is a false argument. We do not practice wealth
redistribution... we do not take money from the wealthy and hand it to the poor.
If we are trying to do this, we are failing miserably at it. What is really
being discussed i is redistribution of tax burden. For taxation to be
considered redistribution of wealth it would have to target and benefit only
certain groups. But the majority of the national budget benefits everyone
regardless of social economic status. There is no means testing on the vast
majority of benefits in this nation - there for no redistribution. When you
loose a job, all are entitled to unemployment benefits. In most cases, the more
you made, the more your benefit. Same with Social Security.We are
talking about redistribution of tax burden, not wealth. Not as sexy. Not the
cool political sound bite. But not redistribution.
"Will taxing the wealthy fix the economy or ruin it?" Speaking as a
doctrinaire Marxist my answer would be "neither." As described in
Marx's "Capital" capitalism has a dynamic which forces ever
increasing concentrations of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. Tax policy can
only slightly shift this process. As per Marx, capitalism will, in spite of the
technical innovations it fosters, ruin itself.
Oh come on ...just raise taxes on rich people like in France (up to 75%)....then
the rich people will gladly pay ...which will then cause those same rich people
to want to expand their business and grow and hire more people ....and the
economy will get better. Right??? So simple. Liberals are so smart.
I may be too simple minded, but it seems to me, everyone should be taxed at the
same rate (including corporations) and that the government shouldn't be
spending more money than it receives.
I like the sign in the photo - "pass the fair tax act". I wonder if the
sign holder is willing to pay her fair share?? NOT!! So what is "fair".
Hmmmm - how about the law of tithing? Tithing is the Lords economic law - is it
fair? Everyone pays 10%. If you make 1 Million you pay 100k. If you make 1
Thousand you pay 100. Interesting how those preaching about fairness never seem
to want to contribute anything. I had a friend like that in high school. I
always had to drive everywhere - he would never drive anywhere. Somehow in his
mind that was fair. I guess he figured that since I "got" to drive him
around and enjoy his company that was my payback. Stupid me.
I consistently fail to see how raising taxes, such that the government has more
funding, will mean a better economy and more jobs. If there is a connection, I
can't find it. You may say that there have been times historically when
taxes were higher and things were better economically, but it's an overly
simplistic argument. There are too many other variables at work to presume the
higher taxes were the cause of a better economy.
Let's see -- Higher taxes on the wealthy in the 1940's -
1970's "fixed" the economy.Lower taxes on the wealthy in the
1990's - 2010's "ruined" the economy.So, I say
raise the taxes to the level of the 1950's!Heaven knows lower taxes
At what point are you "Rich". If you make 30,000.00 and pay 10% taxes
you have 27,000.00 a year left over for you to use. If being rich is somebody
who makes 200,000.00 a year and you think they should pay 90% taxes because the
are "rich" now they only have 20,000.00 a year left over so then who is
"rich". The best economy is one that has opportunity for all to succeed
because of hard work not one where everyone is equal no matter what they
contribute. I would suggest a simple Children's storybook "The little
Red Hen" this is what the world has become, somebody else do all the work
everybody wants a piece of the pie. If you are not satisfied with you lot in
life change it, after all "If you always do what you have always done, You
will always get what you have always got"
@Patriot, or we could do what the Conservatives did last time they were in power
- lower taxes, increase spending, and declare two unfunded wars.... that did
wonders for the budget. And the economy performed so well under that plan
too... Between the liberals and conservatives.... perhaps if we
compromised in the middle, we might get to a reasonable answer.
If a group of people decide to buy a community automobile to be used by all
should they share the cost of the automobile and its maintenance, in terms of
time reserved, the miles driven, the number of people transported, the speed
driven, whether day or night or a simple flat apportionment equally on all
users. A "Fair Tax" method might use all of these with
some items being exempted for certain people. A simple tax method
would use the most likely measurement of use, and tax proportionately. Like
milage. If America would tax people according to the benefit they
receive from citizenship, the most likely measurement would be a flat rate on
personal income. It might not be perfect but it would be the most fair.
@Kindred – “I consistently fail to see how raising taxes, such that
the government has more funding, will mean a better economy and more jobs. If
there is a connection, I can't find it.”Because you are
failing to see that some forms of government spending have a multiplier effect.
As two simple examples:1.Transfer payments to Grandma for a new
hip.2.Government funded transportation project.Number one does
not have a multiplier effect and can be said to diminish economic output. Number
two, provided the transportation project is economically beneficial (i.e., it is
not a “bridge to nowhere”) it typically has a multiplier effect far
in excess of the tax to fund it. But it gets a bit tricky because
even in example #1, if taxes were imposed on a low velocity source (i.e., income
not cycled back through the economy – as economists are discovering is the
case with some portion of the super-rich’s income), it will have a
positive multiplier effect.It is only right-wing ideology that tells
you all taxes are bad, not economic facts…
Tyler D.: "...It is only right-wing ideology that tells you all taxes are
bad..."Why do liberals always assume that those who advocate
less government and lower taxes want NO taxes and NO government? Even the most
right-wing conservative realizes that we need many government services and we
need to pay for them.I won't return the favor and accuse you of
thinking that "all taxes are good". Even the most left-wing liberal will
admit that many taxes are just plain wasted on worthless government projects.We need government to protect us, build common infrastructure, and
provide rule of law. It needs to provide basic needs for the poor, disabled, and
old.But our current government is doing somewhere between two and
three times what it should. That is why we are $17 trillion in debt in spite of
very high taxes.
@Ultra Bob – “If America would tax people according to the benefit
they receive from citizenship, the most likely measurement would be a flat rate
on personal income. It might not be perfect but it would be the most
fair.”Consider this – When the size of any
enterprise reaches a certain level, increases in revenue are largely a function
of economies of scale – i.e., the owner of the business is not working any
harder operating 50 stores as 5,000 (he just hires more managers).If
we recognize that his tremendous gain in wealth based on scale is due to a
population who has the means to buy his products (by society educating &
keeping healthy this population), the benefit he receives is exponential above
the benefit of government services he uses directly.Same goes for
the pro-athlete, rock star, movie star or anyone else whose services are valued
by millions.By this account, the “fair tax” for the
economies-of-scale rich (which includes inherited wealth) is not the same as the
rate for the rest of us. @ JoeCapitalist2 Point
Just to clarify the arguments regarding labor union participation in the U.S.,
the highest point of union participation was 35.5% in 1945. In 1950,
participation was slightly lower, then by 1960 the rate was just above 30%. By
1970, the rate was under 25%. A precipitous decline began about 1970, so by 1995
the rate was 15%. The descent has been gradual since that point and may be
nearing a bottom.To attribute a successful economy to the existence
of labor unions is specious at best. I think you'll find a more telling
explanation in the policies of the Federal Reserve. The chairman of the Federal
Reserve during the so-called "golden years" of the 1950's was
William McCheseny Martin. Unlike his successor Arthur Burns, he successfully
held off the demands of presidents and their administrations that the Fed
"juice" the economy with low interest rates and easy money. He
infuriated Lyndon Johnson during the 1960's in LBJ's quest for a
"guns and butter" policy that would have required massive infusions of
fiat money.You want to find the culprit in this crony-capitalist
economy, look no further than Fed policies.
Chris B –“I would be lazy and a thief if I thought I
could demand my neighbor pay for my share of government resources.” So in other words, the ultra-rich who do not pay their share are lazy
thieves too?I think you may be on to something.The highest
earners paid over 90 percent back in the 1950’s when Eisenhower was
President, and the nation was doing well.They their tax rate is only
35%, and consequently the nation is struggling to pay its bills.It’s
time for the rich to pay their fair share again.Maybe we should do
what works for a change, instead of kowtowing to the likes of the Koch brothers
who insist the rich should pay even less taxes.Plutocrats like the
Koch brothers have made nodding peons out of a huge segment of Americans, and
that is a real pity. But at the same time the Kochs have convinced these
gullible, “Conservative” poor and middle class that by being servile
to the rich, they are in reality exercising their rights as proud
individualists.People are funny.
"But our current government is doing somewhere between two and three times
what it should. That is why we are $17 trillion in debt in spite of very high
taxes."Thank you for stating why we need more government
regulation on Wall Street, cut the defense budget in half, and raise taxes.
Gotta pay off the debt by also bringing in more revenue.
Not a single left-wing poster has refuted the established truth that those who
are wealthy are much better managers of money than the government is. That is
"Not a single left-wing poster has refuted the established truth that those
who are wealthy are much better managers of money than the government is. That
is irrefutable fact."Two points here...What happened
in 2008? So why don't you give all of your hard earned money to some
billionaire in hopes that he will maintain your roads and services?
Even a casual reading of the Constitution shows that the duties allocated to the
Federal Government are general in nature, none of which have anything to do with
personal welfare or government paid subsidies to citizens, yet there are those
who continually tell us that the "rich" should bear a larger portion of
the federal debt than they pay.We, the people, as a group, rely on
the Federal Government to protect the States against attack. No State is left
to itself if attacked. Should the State of Nevada bear a larger burden when
bills are allocated to the States for defense than the State of New York?
Nevada is larger in land area. More of the State of Nevada is "owned"
by the Federal Government than the State of New York. So, why shouldn't
the people of Nevada, and all who visit there, pay 150% more, or 200% more, or
500% more than those who live in New York?That same faulty reasoning
is the basis for those who demand that the "rich" should pay more per
capita than the "poor".
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah Nevada is larger in land area.
More of the State of Nevada is "owned" by the Federal Government than
the State of New York. So, why shouldn't the people of Nevada, and all who
visit there, pay 150% more, or 200% more, or 500% more than those who live in
New York?======== Because dry empty desert does make any
money, or pay any taxes.The Cosntitution was written for
"people", not dirt.FYI -- The "people" of New York
already DO pay more in taxes than the people of Nevada.If Fact - the
"rich" guys in New York are paying the "poor" guys in Nevada.
LDS Liberal, what you wrote may be your opinion, but nowhere in the Constitution
have we, the people, given the Federal Government authority to protect US. What
we have authorized the Federal Government to do is to protect the Union, the
Federation of States, such that if one State were to be attacked, all States
would unitedly respond to protect the UNION.The fundamental
misunderstanding that many people have, that somehow the duty of the Federal
Government is to protect our individual lives, to wipe our noses, to feed us, to
clothe us, to educate us, is at the root of the "tax the rich" fallacy.
No one person's life is safeguarded by the Constitution.
(Protecting you is the job of your local police department.) Without a Union,
each State would be at the mercy of every government on earth. Nevada, with few
people, would be a likely candidate for takeover by any nation. The
"dirt" of Nevada is just as precious as the "dirt" of New York.
No citizen is more responsible for protecting the Union than another, no matter
how poor or wealthy he might be.
We need more money to pay for our own defense, infrastructure, education, and
health care.Repubs want to place this burden solely on the poor and
middle class.The only logical way to pay for these completely
necessary services is to tax those making the most. There won't be negative
consequences. The rich were taxed a lot more before and our economy soared! They
can do so again.
It is obvious that government is looking for any revenue stream it can: carbon
tax, increased taxes on the wealthy, healthcare tax (Obamacare). Government is
growing too fast…faster than its revenue growth. What is the main cause
of government growth?Well, besides liberalism, the main cause is
social security, medicaid, medicare, and now Obamacare. The welfare state.Cut federal spending and we won't have a deficit problem after 10
years (the Paul Ryan plan). Now to be fair, I agree with Alan
Simpson and the commission that Obama created to present a proposal for cuts vs.
tax increases. There should be some modest increases in taxes--primarily
closing loopholes, but also spreading the tax base. When 47% of Americans pay
no income tax, that is a big problem. But the panel also called for reduced
spending, changes to social security, and changes to other entitlement programs,
as well as decreases in defense spending.I agree with those
proposals. But Obama failed to listen to his own commission.
I propose that republicans stop talking and just eliminate all taxes on the
rich. Just do it. Let us see how that experiment would turn out.
The Earth was created for all of God's children but the devious ones have
redistributed it all to themselves and now want the rest of us to serve them
rather than God.The conservative term of wealth redistribution
starts out with the wrong assumptions. It assumes that the Earth's bounties
were created for and belong to the small percentage of the population that have
used all kinds of devious means to control those blessings.
@David"Government is growing too fast…faster than its revenue
growth."Actually it's growing extremely slowly the last few
years which is why the deficit is falling so fast from over a trillion to
projected to be under 500 billion this year.Federal Spending2009: 3.517 trillion2010: 3.457 trillion2011: 3.603 trillion2012: 3.537 trillion2013: 3.455 trillion2014 (estimate): 3.651
As Hutterite said the answer to the question is neither, and it's a very
bad question born of partisanship not curiosity. "But not all
wealth is Inherited (as you seem to assume)."Unfortunately
2bits, that's one of the premises of Pikkety's exhaustive study and
book. Inherited, and non work related wealth is in fact becoming dominant
again, and is growing faster than gdp, thus the income gap. Here's another conservative premise that is wrong. Progressives believe
that taxing the wealthy is the way to eliminate poverty. Progressives just like
conservatives believe that jobs and work is the way to eliminate poverty. What
we disagree about is the role of government in creating an environment of work.
To "LDS Liberal" again with the same post.Lets look at the
facts about the top 1%.The top 1% control only 35% of all wealth.
They earn only about 20% of all income taxes. Since we tax income and not
wealth, according to your standard, they should pay for 20% of all income taxes.
The reality is that they pay 37% of all income taxes. According to your
standards, they are paying MORE than their fair share.You pay 28% of
your income to taxes because your income is based on a salary. Mitt
Romney's salary is based on investments either through dividends (already
taxed at the corporate level) or through capital gains. If you wanted to retire
and earn money through dividends and capital gains you are welcome to do so.Why do you spend 100% of your income maintaining your lifestyle? Do you
really need a large house and fancy cars? If Mitt only lives on 1% of his
income that shows how careful he is with his money.
Frozen Fractals,Unfunded liabilities due to demographics (baby
boomers retiring) will introduce $70 Trillion (that's Trillion with a
capital "T") to the national budget. Federal spending is dropping now,
but is projected to increase dramatically by 2020. Do you want to wait until
2021 to address this?Liberalism and the welfare state has broken our
nation, we just don't recognize it yet because 2020 hasn't arrived
yet. Something must be done. Obama's commission got it right: spread the
tax base (47% of Americans paying no income tax is not fair, right?), a moderate
increase in taxes, dramatic spending reductions through reform to Social
Security, Medicaid, Medicare and other entitlement/welfare programs, and
reduction to defense spending.Problem solved.
@RedShirtCalTechPasedena, CALets look at the facts about the
top 1%.======== OK, let's apply another
Conservative myth...Wealth creates jobs.Using
"your" numbers, the 1% own 35% of everything, and should be
creating 35% of the jobs, and 35% of us should be working for them.But, Small businees account for MOST of America.There are
28,000,000 small businesses in the U.S. -- which outnumber corporations 1162 to
1 Small businesses employ 57% of the countrySmall
businesses pay 44% of U.S. payroll Small businesses aren't
anywhere NEAR the Billionaires you think are doing all the work, producing all
the stuff, and fueling and driving America's economy.The 1% are
TAKERS, not Makers!
To "airnaut" those are not my numbers. Those numbers come from Forbes,
USA Today, and the IRS.The top 1% are not these mega millionaires.
The top 1% earns at least $350,000/yr, the top 5% starts at $160,000/yr, and the
top 10% (that is you) starts at $113,000/yr.The top 1% are not
Billionares either. According to the IRS, they have an average net worth of $14
million.Plus, not all of the people in the top 1% own or run small
businesses. Take John Huntsman Sr. as an example. He is in the top 1% and does
not own a small business. He owns a HUGE business that employs thousands of
people. He grew his business from a small business into a big one, just like
many of the billionaires out there.The question for you is why to
you hate the rich so much? Do you not want to move up from the top 10% to top
5% of incomes in the US?Explain how they are "takers and not