Jump to content

Soaking the Rich will not solve Spending Problem


R68 Subway Car

Recommended Posts

Here's one for starters... Single middle class and upper middle class professionals like myself. Oh and basically anyone who isn't asking for more tax hikes. Let all of the folks who want taxes pay more. ;)

 

Single middle class, and upper middle class are overtaxed???? Are you on drugs???? Really, that's not a joke either!

 

Why are you still commenting anyway???? Shouldn't "the rich" be posting as to why they shouldn't be taxed?

 

Not some "upper middle class" professional from Staten Island???

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Single middle class, and upper middle class are overtaxed???? Are you on drugs???? Really, that's not a joke either!

 

Why are you still commenting anyway???? Shouldn't "the rich" be posting as to why they shouldn't be taxed?

 

Not some "upper middle class" professional from Staten Island???

 

Yeah well the liberals and Democrats don't think anyone is overtaxed, so that's not a shocker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure as hell don't know anyone in the country at this very moment who is overtaxed. How? Who?

 

I guess by that you mean since I have disposable income I'm not overtaxed... lol It's amazing that I should work sometimes 12 hour days and expect to have nothing left to show for it, all in the name of "paying my fair share"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that the top 10 percent pay 70+ percent of the taxes , that is not enough for these angry leftists.

 

Yeah, they're always angry... And irrational too... Their answer to even out the playing field is to overtax those who have more... It's nothing more than legal robbery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what exactly is the truth professor?

 

lol... Professor... I haven't been called that in a few years now... Old nickname that I earned even before my teaching days... Well I think I've stated the truth, but no one wants to hear the truth. Overtaxing the rich will not solve anything. You'll just be unfairly overtaxing one group of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol... Professor... I haven't been called that in a few years now... Old nickname that I earned even before my teaching days... Well I think I've stated the truth, but no one wants to hear the truth. Overtaxing the rich will not solve anything. You'll just be unfairly overtaxing one group of people.

 

so would you say the middle class is being taxed fairly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so would you say the middle class is being taxed fairly?

 

No, the middle class should pay fewer taxes as well. I think the tax system needs to be greatly restructured and we could lower taxes with less social programs like welfare. Welfare shouldn't be done away with, but it should be heavily scrutinized to avoid abuse and waste, and should only be temporary; serving as a last resort given to folks in need. My one group comment is referring to the rich being further overtaxed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you stopped listening to the FOX airheads for a minute and actually thought about things, I'm sure you'd realize that that is completely appropriate (and really even undertaxing) when you remember that the bottom 80% of America controls 7% of the financial wealth.

 

Stole the words right out of my mouth. That idiot doesn't do anything except regurgitate the shit that idiot Limbaugh and the morons at Fox spout.

 

No, the middle class should pay fewer taxes as well. I think the tax system needs to be greatly restructured and we could lower taxes with less social programs like welfare. Welfare shouldn't be done away with, but it should be heavily scrutinized to avoid abuse and waste, and should only be temporary; serving as a last resort given to folks in need. My one group comment is referring to the rich being further overtaxed.

 

You are talking in circles. Welfare is a drop in the bucket. Reducing fraud and abuse requires tax dollars to step up enforcement efforts, which costs money that the government does not have - meaning hiring more people to investigate and look for fraud, as well as more money to bring them to justice.

 

I'd rather see harsher financial penalties for any and all kinds of fraud. Penalties that significantly exceed the theft. This requires no additional tax dollars for enforcement, it just means that those who are caught will have their peckers nailed to the wall financially and rightly so.

 

To cut spending without adding expenses, you have to cut entire programs, or you have to increase taxes. Or you have to do both. If you want to start with welfare, as I have said before, that is a drop in the bucket.

 

Generally, when people say "welfare" they mean social exclusion NEC as well as housing. So fine. If you cut both of those programs ENTIRELY (which will not happen without a fight), you save 240 billion dollars. Still nowhere near balancing the budget.

 

Taxes have to go up, and you yourself have given some pretty good reasons for why they can't go up on the middle class (and upper middle class is still...middle class - YOU are MIDDLE CLASS). So therefore taxes must go up on the rich, the only group that can afford to pay.

 

You may not think it's "fair" that the rich of today will be paying more in taxes than their parents who abused the system, but it is what it is. That's the most compelling argument for why Thomas Jefferson said it was the duty of each generation to pay their own debts as they go, instead of saddling their children and grandchildren with it. Since the middle class of yesterday did not benefit from the tax breaks of yesterday, it would be entirely unfair to ask them to pay for the tax breaks received by the rich.

 

The only way is to cut expenses significantly (while keeping core services in place) and simultaneously TAXING THE RICH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking in circles. Welfare is a drop in the bucket. Reducing fraud and abuse requires tax dollars to step up enforcement efforts, which costs money that the government does not have - meaning hiring more people to investigate and look for fraud, as well as more money to bring them to justice.

 

I'd rather see harsher financial penalties for any and all kinds of fraud. Penalties that significantly exceed the theft. This requires no additional tax dollars for enforcement, it just means that those who are caught will have their peckers nailed to the wall financially and rightly so.

 

To cut spending without adding expenses, you have to cut entire programs, or you have to increase taxes. Or you have to do both. If you want to start with welfare, as I have said before, that is a drop in the bucket.

 

Generally, when people say "welfare" they mean social exclusion NEC as well as housing. So fine. If you cut both of those programs ENTIRELY (which will not happen without a fight), you save 240 billion dollars. Still nowhere near balancing the budget.

 

Taxes have to go up, and you yourself have given some pretty good reasons for why they can't go up on the middle class (and upper middle class is still...middle class - YOU are MIDDLE CLASS). So therefore taxes must go up on the rich, the only group that can afford to pay.

 

You may not think it's "fair" that the rich of today will be paying more in taxes than their parents who abused the system, but it is what it is. That's the most compelling argument for why Thomas Jefferson said it was the duty of each generation to pay their own debts as they go, instead of saddling their children and grandchildren with it. Since the middle class of yesterday did not benefit from the tax breaks of yesterday, it would be entirely unfair to ask them to pay for the tax breaks received by the rich.

 

The only way is to cut expenses significantly (while keeping core services in place) and simultaneously TAXING THE RICH.

 

A drop in the bucket or not, 250 billion is still 250 billion and digs up a bit out of debt. You have to start somewhere. I would raise taxes and punish those corporations that love moving jobs overseas to China thus making goods from China more expensive. That right there would be a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A drop in the bucket or not, 250 billion is still 250 billion and digs up a bit out of debt. You have to start somewhere. I would raise taxes and punish those corporations that love moving jobs overseas to China thus making goods from China more expensive. That right there would be a start.

 

That would be a start, but where is the incentive to stop those companies doing so when the taxes they pay (as a corporation) are negligible to begin with because they can reduce their tax liability to almost nothing using loopholes and the fact that the manufacturing is overseas???

 

That's why I advocate lowering the corporate tax rates, and getting rid of loopholes. It puts US taxes on US businesses lower, which can no longer be "passed on to the consumer." I hate big business as much as anyone...but a tax on a US business is really a tax on the American public as a whole because taxes are passed on to consumers.

 

By lowering the corporate tax rates, you allow businesses to do one of two things - 1) lower prices (unlikely) 2) reinvest in the US.

 

By not extending tax breaks to companies who offshore jobs (by eliminating tax deductibility of wages paid to foreign nationals not living here in the USA on a valid visa, as well as tax deductibility of wages paid in foreign currency), you create a tax incentive for companies to keep jobs here...even with lower corporate taxes. Because they'd raise them by offshoring jobs.

 

By raising individual tax rates on the rich and reducing the tax deductibility of compensation above a certain threshold, you create an incentive for businesses to better distribute their profits among ALL their employees, not just the very rich.

 

This strengthens the middle class consumer AND American production at the same time, cultivating supply as well as demand DOMESTICALLY. And with the continuing existence of federal and state activity, this creates more US economic activity which allows government to collect, while keeping the money here.

 

The rich see a slice off the tip of the iceberg of their wealth, and it benefits everyone.

 

I don't advocate completely eliminating welfare because children do not deserve to grow up starving and malnourished because their parents are drug addicts or poor. The 250 billion saved by cutting welfare is a drop in the bucket, but it may save you more in the long run in terms of healthcare, etc. for people that would wind up deranged or hospitalized for various illnesses.

 

I do agree there are people who are habitual system beaters and should be removed from the rolls and left to die since they are not only incapable but unwilling to support themselves.

 

But welfare needs to exist in some capacity for those who have done nothing wrong (children), or those who just need a helping hand (not a permanent safety net) to get back to looking after themselves again.

 

Increased economic activity from the effective tax policy I outlined above may even reduce welfare costs by reducing recipients, as unemployment would figure to drop with more Americans working making products here in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.