1% needs to start paying their fair share of taxes >:

[nextJin]

You sound mentally ill.

At least I know what I am talking about instead if just bitching.

 

[sandorski]

Yes, there is a problem with distribution of wealth and, I agree, taxing the rich more will definitely make the gap smaller. But exactly how is taxing the "rich" more going to help the poor and middle class? Seems to me that you've accomplished nothing to actually addresses the root of the problem with your suggested approach.

Good point. In the context of the current Political Debate lies the answer though. Both on the State level and amongst the Federal Republicans, Tax Cuts for the Wealthy are being offset by Cuts to programs primarily aimed at the Lower and Middle Class. Even without further Tax Cuts to the Wealthy, those same programs are the focus of Cuts. Especially, although not exclusively, amongst Republicans. That's how it makes a difference.

That said, a more natural, although Government imposed, solution would be to increase Minimum Wage.

 

[sandorski]

They are already paying what society feels is owed to them by higher taxes. If they want to raise taxes fine. The notion being debated was that they never contributed to society.

No it's not.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Good point. In the context of the current Political Debate lies the answer though. Both on the State level and amongst the Federal Republicans, Tax Cuts for the Wealthy are being offset by Cuts to programs primarily aimed at the Lower and Middle Class. Even without further Tax Cuts to the Wealthy, those same programs are the focus of Cuts. Especially, although not exclusively, amongst Republicans. That's how it makes a difference.

That said, a more natural, although Government imposed, solution would be to increase Minimum Wage.

I don't have a problem with increasing minimum wage, but I don't think that's going to help us much. We need good paying jobs...not minimum wage jobs.

 

[Lithium381]

Raising the Min. Wage is bad for us!!

Some people aren't worth minimum wage, they're simply not. It will make it hard for those people to get even the simplest job. They'll be on the government dole for 100% of their needs.

Prices will go up to compensate and maintain profit. Who is going to be affected the most? Those at minimum wage. Terrible cycle.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Raising the Min. Wage is bad for us!!

Some people aren't worth minimum wage, they're simply not. It will make it hard for those people to get even the simplest job. They'll be on the government dole for 100% of their needs.

Prices will go up to compensate and maintain profit. Who is going to be affected the most? Those at minimum wage. Terrible cycle.

People gotta eat and pay the rent....no? Hopefully higher wages would also provide additional incentive for those on the government dole to seek work.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Who said I was standing up for the rights money spending? Way to throw out a point I never brought up.

Clinton? Is Obama Clinton? No, again, bring up points not brought up before.

Obama problem is that he doubled down on bad spending habits of the president you lefties love to hate.

If GW Bushes spending was so bad, then how come Obama's is good? What cut backs did he have?

Oh wait, none, we just added 4+ trillion in debt, and still have close a trillion a year budget deficit.

People throw out points to back up their message, that is how it works guy, just like when you tried to defend Bush by claiming Obama has magically spent $4 trillion in less than 4 years....which is so absurd it is laughable. I suppose you also believe he spent $200 million a day during that visit to India in 2010/2011? You guys need to start researching both sides and see where the middle, i.e. the truth/facts, really stand.

 

[michal1980]

People throw out points to back up their message, that is how it works guy, just like when you tried to defend Bush by claiming Obama has magically spent $4 trillion in less than 4 years....which is so absurd it is laughable. I suppose you also believe he spent $200 million a day during that visit to India in 2010/2011? You guys need to start researching both sides and see where the middle, i.e. the truth/facts, really stand.

Obama has spent far more then 4 trillion in years. 4 trillion is just the amount not covered by revenues.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Obama has spent far more then 4 trillion in years. 4 trillion is just the amount not covered by revenues.

That is an absolute falacy. This is exactly the problem with you people still clinging to the right is that they are LYING TO YOU and then you go say this stuff to someone like me who knows what bullshit it is because we actually read and listen to more than just one side or person. You should read this, while it probably won't be enlightening to you it really should be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...mas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html

There are 2 pages so make sure to keep reading.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That is an absolute falacy. This is exactly the problem with you people still clinging to the right is that they are LYING TO YOU and then you go say this stuff to someone like me who knows what bullshit it is because we actually read and listen to more than just one side or person. You should read this, while it probably won't be enlightening to you it really should be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...mas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html

There are 2 pages so make sure to keep reading.

Just the 2012 budget alone has $3.7T of spending and a $1.1T deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending

“Get your facts first; then you can distort them as you please” – Mark Twain

 

[michal1980]

That is an absolute falacy. This is exactly the problem with you people still clinging to the right is that they are LYING TO YOU and then you go say this stuff to someone like me who knows what bullshit it is because we actually read and listen to more than just one side or person. You should read this, while it probably won't be enlightening to you it really should be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...mas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html

There are 2 pages so make sure to keep reading.

ummm. I'm right aren't I?

Did bush magically spend that money while obama is in charge?

Just because Bush spent an extra trillion more then we took in with his last budget, does that mean Obama has to as well?

I thought he was going to surgically trim the budget down so things would be balanced.

Its laughable to blame bush for obama's spending.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Just the 2012 budget alone has $3.7T of spending and a $1.1T deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending

“Get your facts first; then you can distort them as you please” – Mark Twain

Yes, my facts are straight. Sure this government has spent that much but how much of it is Obama directly responsible for? He didn't start the wars on terrorism or drugs, nor any of the other myriad existing costs when he came into office. You can quote Twain but it won't change the fact that saddling a guy who has been in office for 4 years with all the costs every administration put into place before he came into office.

ummm. I'm right aren't I?

Did bush magically spend that money while obama is in charge?

Just because Bush spent an extra trillion more then we took in with his last budget, does that mean Obama has to as well?

I thought he was going to surgically trim the budget down so things would be balanced.

Its laughable to blame bush for obama's spending.

It's laughable not to blame Bush for the spending problem this country has, just as it is laughable not to discern that he is far more responsible for the state of the economy right now than Obama is. Considering he put into place a stimulus package to try to save us from Bush and the banks' destruction of our economy, expecting him to surgically trim the budget is as absurd as you defending these idiots who caused all this shit to begin with.

Now it's your turn to rebut with right wing propaganda about how less government spending and lowering taxes on the rich is the only thing that can save our economy, meanwhile ignoring the fact that our deficit and budget have spiralled out of control over the last 32 years, only 12 of which were under the control of Dem presidents. Lowering taxes did not create new jobs, it got them shipped to other countries and made it increasingly difficult for this country to run effectively.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a Republican who studies both sides and researches to find the truth. Our leadership has been lying their asses off, whether you accept this or not is not an issue to me because if we were face to face you'd just throw out another Limbaughism and yell and laugh until I got bored and walked away shaking my head.

 

[chucky2]

You either didn't read what he said, or failed completely to actually understand it.

No, I read it, it just is the usual drivel. Pay more because you're rich. Well, King is rich. Why aren't he and the rest of the pay mo because yooz rich folks in the news from cutting checks (and signing up to keep cutting checks while they pull in their rich incomes) to the Gov?

Ironic you say I didn't read or understand, isn't it?

Just answer this, it's simple, even for Progressives: Why aren't the rich who advocate more taxes for the rich cutting checks in the amounts they feel rich folks should be paying?

It's a simple thing, so I'm sure you'll be able to answer it directly instead of trying the drivel dodge that JJjhhhnpartisannnnn did. Still waiting...

Chuck

 

[Veliko]

No, I read it, it just is the usual drivel. Pay more because you're rich. Well, King is rich. Why aren't he and the rest of the pay mo because yooz rich folks in the news from cutting checks (and signing up to keep cutting checks while they pull in their rich incomes) to the Gov?

Ironic you say I didn't read or understand, isn't it?

Just answer this, it's simple, even for Progressives: Why aren't the rich who advocate more taxes for the rich cutting checks in the amounts they feel rich folks should be paying?

It's a simple thing, so I'm sure you'll be able to answer it directly instead of trying the drivel dodge that JJjhhhnpartisannnnn did. Still waiting...

So, essentially, you didn't actually understand what he was saying then.

 

[Veliko]

This is Obama's number.

We have a progressive tax system which addresses your concern. Those making >$250k already pay for most of our nation's tax burden.

It addresses it to an extent. Those people, and the large corporations, dodge huge amounts of tax, through various clever accounting tricks.

Yes, there is a problem with distribution of wealth and, I agree, taxing the rich more will definitely make the gap smaller. But exactly how is taxing the "rich" more going to help the poor and middle class? Seems to me you've accomplished nothing that actually addresses the root of the problem with your suggested approach.

If extra funds are made available, it opens up more options for those people. It pays for more libraries, youth centres, additional assistance for childcare, improving the food in schools in the poorer areas, state-supplied water/gas/electricity, improve the training for the police, and all sorts.

 

[chucky2]

So, essentially, you didn't actually understand what he was saying then.

I understood his duhversion, yes.

Now, answer my question please. What's preventing King and all the other rich folks from making the donations to the Gov that they're advocating?

Such a simple answer, yet, seemingly so hard for you to answer. Why is that?

 

[Veliko]

I understood his duhversion, yes.

Now, answer my question please. What's preventing King and all the other rich folks from making the donations to the Gov that they're advocating?

Such a simple answer, yet, seemingly so hard for you to answer. Why is that?

Because you are being an obtuse boor.

 

[chucky2]

So you elect not to answer, that's fine. I think by this point, everyone not a shill for your side understands what you're really advocating.

Must suck to have such a weak argument you can't even take a casual stab at backing it up. 🙁

Chuck

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It addresses it to an extent. Those people, and the large corporations, dodge huge amounts of tax, through various clever accounting tricks.

If large corporations are taking advantage of our current tax laws unfairly, Congress or the IRS should address these issues at once. The problem isn't the Corporations, it's our tax code which is mucked up by decades of "best intentions" by our Legislative representatives. Blame them if you want to put blame where blame is due. Bottom line, our tax code is incredibly complex and needs to be simplified.

If extra funds are made available, it opens up more options for those people. It pays for more libraries, youth centres, additional assistance for childcare, improving the food in schools in the poorer areas, state-supplied water/gas/electricity, improve the training for the police, and all sorts.

Ah...so you want to spend all the extra money you get from the "rich folks" on the "poor folks" which will further exasperate the government dependency problem. Thanks...but no thanks. In my opinion, your idea of utopia is actually a slippery slope to hell.

 

[Throckmorton]

If large corporations are taking advantage of our current tax laws unfairly, Congress or the IRS should address these issues at once. The problem isn't the Corporations, it's our tax code which is mucked up by decades of "best intentions" by our Legislative representatives. Blame them if you want to put blame where blame is due. Bottom line, our tax code is incredibly complex and needs to be simplified.


Ah...so you want to spend all the extra money you get from the "rich folks" on the "poor folks" which will further exasperate the government dependency problem. Thanks...but no thanks. In my opinion, your idea of utopia is actually a slippery slope to hell.

Let's increase the minimum wage to a living wage. The working poor will be doing OK and won't need to be dependent on the government.


Otherwise the poor can't pull the money out of their asses that they need to not be dependent on government. They can't negotiate for higher wages either, because that only works collectively.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Let's increase the minimum wage to a living wage. The working poor will be doing OK and won't need to be dependent on the government.


Otherwise the poor can't pull the money out of their asses that they need to not be dependent on government. They can't negotiate for higher wages either, because that only works collectively.

What's a living wage...$10/hour? 2000 hours/year * $10/hour = $20k annual
Is that reasonable? Probably needs to go a little higher to actually incent people to forego welfare if the following dated info is even remotely accurate in today's world (1995 study).

http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html

Hourly Wage Equivalent of Welfare

Alaska 15.48
Massachusetts 14.66
Connecticut 14.23
Washington, D.C. 13.99
New York 13.13
New Jersey 12.74
Rhode Island 12.55
California 11.59
Virginia 11.11
Maryland 10.96
New Hampshire 10.96
Maine 10.38
Delaware 10.34
Colorado 10.05
Vermont 10.05
Minnesota 10.00
Washington 9.95
Nevada 9.71
Utah 9.57
Michigan 9.47
Pennsylvania 9.47
Illinois 9.33
Wisconsin 9.33
Oregon 9.23
Wyoming 9.18
Indiana 9.13
Iowa 9.13
New Mexico 8.94
Florida 8.75
Idaho 8.65
Oklahoma 8.51
Kansas 8.46
North Dakota 8.46
Georgia 8.37
Ohio 8.37
South Dakata 8.32
Louisana 8.17
Kentucky 8.08
North Carolina 8.08
Montana 7.84
South Carolina 7.79
Nebraska 7.64
Texas 7.31
West Virginia 7.31
Missouri 7.16
Arizona 6.78
Tennessee 6.59
Arkansas 6.35
Alabama 6.25
Mississippi 5.53

 

[blackangst1]

I don't have a problem with increasing minimum wage, but I don't think that's going to help us much. We need good paying jobs...not minimum wage jobs.

Agree. Those earning minimum wage make up a measley 5.2% of the work force. So although it may make that 5.2%'s lives a tiny amount better, it certainly wont have an impact on the economy.

 

[Paul98]

I understood his duhversion, yes.

Now, answer my question please. What's preventing King and all the other rich folks from making the donations to the Gov that they're advocating?

Such a simple answer, yet, seemingly so hard for you to answer. Why is that?

Because it won't do anything to help fix or change the problem that is there. Where as raising taxes on the rich will help fix the problem. It also won't have any meaningful negative impact.

 

[blackangst1]

Because it won't do anything to help fix or change the problem that is there. Where as raising taxes on the rich will help fix the problem. It also won't have any meaningful negative impact.

How will raising taxes on the rich improve unemployment or raise wages of low wage people?

 

[Jhhnn]

Er, that's all great drivel and all, but...

...WTF is stopping King from taking all his money, save say $250k (he wouldn't want to be "rich" after paying his fair share now would he?), and writing a check to the Gov? He obviously feels the Gov needs mo munnay, and there is already a provision for him to do so.

WTF is stopping him and the rest of the give mo cracks to yo crack ho Gov rich folks from giving what they feel the Gov needs?

Waiting for the reason, I'm sure this'll be good....

Chuck

No, I read it, it just is the usual drivel. Pay more because you're rich. Well, King is rich. Why aren't he and the rest of the pay mo because yooz rich folks in the news from cutting checks (and signing up to keep cutting checks while they pull in their rich incomes) to the Gov?

Ironic you say I didn't read or understand, isn't it?

Just answer this, it's simple, even for Progressives: Why aren't the rich who advocate more taxes for the rich cutting checks in the amounts they feel rich folks should be paying?

It's a simple thing, so I'm sure you'll be able to answer it directly instead of trying the drivel dodge that JJjhhhnpartisannnnn did. Still waiting...

Chuck

Drivel? What you offer is obfuscational drivel of the worst sort. That's the whole point of the "why don't you just cut a check?" song and dance.

What King points out, and that you pointedly ignore, is that Rich people are loathe to part with their money unless they have to do so, particularly wrt taxes.

He doesn't exclude himself from that judgment, either. Hence, "Tax Me!" and all of the others like me. Compel me to pay more, and my peers as well, because I know that the govt needs the revenue.

If the current situation demands sacrifice, and I think it does, the only way to extend any sacrifice at all to the Rich is to raise their taxes. It's the only way to achieve any balance at all, given Repubs' demands to Cut, cut, Cut! all the other spending that many Americans & the whole economy depends on. Cut SS. Cut Medicare & Medicaid. Cut food stamps. Cut EITC. Cut govt jobs. Cut middle class tax deductions.

All of those are things Repubs have sworn to do, sacrifice they demand from the non-Rich in this Country.

Should the Rich escape that entirely, particularly considering that they were the beneficiaries of the policies that put us in this mess?

Why? Because they're Rich?

Shee-it, Sherlock, they're in the best position of any to make relatively painless sacrifice. Had Mitt paid 20% LTCG taxes instead of 15% on his 2 year income of $42M, he'd have taken home $2.1M less.

If you think he'd even miss it, you're out of your mind.