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

[Lithium381]

I got news for you, taxing the rich will not raise the income levels of the middle and lower classes. It will just make a bigger government.

Fixed that for ya. Taxing the rich more will put our government on a more stable financial footing which would indeed help the middle and lower classes without compromising their already precarious financial positions. It is a GOOD thing. It does not, by itself, raise or lower spending. This whole 'starve the beast' ideology espoused by the right has hurt our country and should not be considered a substitute for any sort of leadership/statesmanship.

starving the beast is a method used when the leadership cannot be counted on to make the correct desicion themselves, you must reduce their options.
but alas, spending has no correlation to revenue for our federal government, we'll just raise the debt ceiling again and again. . . everytime we do that it should be a HUGE wakeup call that SOMETHING IS WRONG.

 

[Brainonska511]

starving the beast is a method used when the leadership cannot be counted on to make the correct desicion themselves, you must reduce their options. but alas, spending has no correlation to revenue for our federal government, we'll just raise the debt ceiling again and again. . . everytime we do that it should be a HUGE wakeup call that SOMETHING IS WRONG.

People need to realize that we can't have our cake and eat it too. Government programs by and large are fairly popular. People just don't want to have their taxes raised to pay for them but at the same time, they don't want to see their favorite programs cut.

 

[Matt1970]

But here is the second news flash, revenue never fell below inflation adjusted levels during any of the Bush and Reagan tax cuts. Deficits are not the result of tax cuts, We still ran deficits when tax rates on the upper class were 70% and up.

 

[QuantumPion]

The notion of "fair share" is inherently flawed.

Let's stipulate that your numbers are correct, and the top earners pay most of the taxes. Despite this, wealth inequality is growing. The top 10%, and especially the top 1%, are the only ones who have been getting ahead over the last 20 or so years.

Do you just think that's okay?

Of course it is. Why on earth would you expect the people that chose to remain uneducated and dependent on the government to get richer? If the income gap was not increasing, that would indicate a serious problem in the economy - it would indicate total industrial stagnation and a collapsing market.

 

[Veliko]

Of course it is. Why on earth would you expect the people that chose to remain uneducated and dependent on the government to get richer? If the income gap was not increasing, that would indicate a serious problem in the economy - it would indicate total industrial stagnation and a collapsing market.

lolwut

 

[boomerang]

The notion of "fair share" is inherently flawed.

Let's stipulate that your numbers are correct, and the top earners pay most of the taxes. Despite this, wealth inequality is growing. The top 10%, and especially the top 1%, are the only ones who have been getting ahead over the last 20 or so years.

Do you just think that's okay?

Do you support the ACA mandate? The biggest tax hike on the middle class in the history of our nation? Do you see it as a means for the remaining 90% to get ahead? The 99%?

Despite countless studies that show tax increases on the wealthiest of Americans will contribute insignificantly to the financial issues facing our nation, it still remains the drumbeat of the left. Just once, I'd like someone like yourself to admit that it's purely punitive. The left wishes to punish those that succeeded that don't agree with their ideology. There is a distinction there. Punishment for those that potentially have the power to usurp the ministrations of the left.

Don't go telling us that you're not a progressive. Don't tell us yet again that you're a moderate. You are a "self-described liberaltarian and unabashed elitist", to use your own words.

Let's hear some truth.

 

[Veliko]

Do you support the ACA mandate? The biggest tax hike on the middle class in the history of our nation? Do you see it as a means for the remaining 90% to get ahead? The 99%?

Despite countless studies that show tax increases on the wealthiest of Americans will contribute insignificantly to the financial issues facing our nation, it still remains the drumbeat of the left. Just once, I'd like someone like yourself to admit that it's purely punitive. The left wishes to punish those that succeeded that don't agree with their ideology. There is a distinction there. Punishment for those that potentially have the power to usurp the ministrations of the left.

Don't go telling us that you're not a progressive. Don't tell us yet again that you're a moderate. You are a "self-described liberaltarian and unabashed elitist", to use your own words.

Let's hear some truth.

So when wealthy people, like Warren Buffet and Stephen King, say that rich people should pay more in taxes, they are lefties who want to punish the successful?

 

[michal1980]

So when wealthy people, like Warren Buffet and Stephen King, say that rich people should pay more in taxes, they are lefties who want to punish the successful?

All talk.

How about denise rich, or edurado saverin who drop there ciztizenship to not pay taxes?

Whats any precentage of 0? might as well jack it up to 100% then since you end up with the same amount.

 

[Veliko]

All talk.

So when a non-rich person says that the rich should pay more taxes, it's just lefty nonsense.

And if a rich person says that the rich should pay more taxes, it's just talk.

So says the non-rich person, who won't even listen to rich people.

How about denise rich, or edurado saverin who drop there ciztizenship to not pay taxes?

What about them? If someone isn't willing to pay back into the system that made them rich, and continues to make them even richer, then they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it.

Whats any precentage of 0? might as well jack it up to 100% then since you end up with the same amount.

Straight from the textbook.

 

[dmcowen674]

How about denise rich, or edurado saverin who drop there citizenship to not pay taxes?

Whats any precentage of 0? might as well jack it up to 100% then since you end up with the same amount.

Hope they all leave.

When are you going?

You certainly sound very unhappy.

 

[NetGuySC]

I believe the lower 50% needs to start paying their fair share in federal taxes. I would be ecstatic with even a 1/10 of 1% federal tax rate versus the negative rate they currently enjoy.

 

[Howard]

I remember there was a head of the USPTO once who said "there is nothing new under the sun".

 

[Jhhnn]

But here is the second news flash, revenue never fell below inflation adjusted levels during any of the Bush and Reagan tax cuts. Deficits are not the result of tax cuts, We still ran deficits when tax rates on the upper class were 70% and up.

Unsurprisingly & utterly dishonest in a truly willful fashion, the regurgitation of talking points you don't even understand. Believing makes you feel good, and that's all that matters apparently.

Current federal tax revenues are at their lowest as a % of GDP since 1951, due to tax cuts.

http://www.poisonyourmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/tax-revenue-as-percentage-of-gdp1.png

Yes, there's always an upward blip when rates are cut as a function of investors cashing in, but that's temporary. There's always a blip during any sort of bubble, as well.

We did run deficits prior to Reagan- very small ones during the post WW2 era. That's how we avoided deflation, expanded the money supply to account for a growing population & the dollar as the world reserve currency. If we hadn't, increased demand for money via population growth would have increased the value of money stuffed into mattresses, killing commerce. Every dollar would have become more valuable through the simple act of holding onto it.

That's the ultimate fat cat dream, anyway- to have money gain in value w/ no risk. It's particularly desirable when over extension of credit results in high default rates. If I previously lent to some people who couldn't pay me back, then I get to compensate if every dollar paid back to me by those who can is more dear. The more valuable every dollar I get becomes, the better off I am. Balance sheet losses can actually become purchasing power gains, as in the early 1930's.

Not that you have any greater chance of understanding that than ants have wrt the working principles of the nuclear reactor next door to their nest. They can't understand, while your own poisoned mental processes mean you simply refuse.

 

[MovingTarget]

All talk.

How about denise rich, or edurado saverin who drop there ciztizenship to not pay taxes?

Whats any precentage of 0? might as well jack it up to 100% then since you end up with the same amount.

Thats something else entirely. If you drop your citizenship, there should be much more severe consequences.

But raising the top marginal rates does not come from any desire to punish the rich for legitimate success. Its simple fiscal prudence.

 

[nobodyknows]

I believe the lower 50% needs to start paying their fair share in federal taxes. I would be ecstatic with even a 1/10 of 1% federal tax rate versus the negative rate they currently enjoy.

You can't get blood from a rock. By the time the average wage earner pays for all his basic living expenses, his state and local taxes, he can't afford to do much. Now compare that to the peo-ple with 5 houses, 10 cars, a yacht and a private plane. Who's not paying there fair share??

 

[QuantumPion]

lolwut

It's pretty easy to understand, even for someone as uneducated as yourself. As long as the welfare state exists, people that stay on welfare for the entire lives never get richer. They are permanent dependents of the state. They will never accumulate wealth and get richer. On the other hand, the people that refuse to be slaves to the government and work for a living will continuously get richer as they work throughout their lives. Therefore, the income gap will always get larger and larger, because the people on the bottom chose to be stagnate.

If the income gap was not getting larger, this would mean that the number of people permanently dependent on the state are growing in number faster than the number of people working to support them. This is unsustainable and will lead to economic and social collapse.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's pretty easy to understand, even for someone as uneducated as yourself. As long as the welfare state exists, people that stay on welfare for the entire lives never get richer. They are permanent dependents of the state. They will never accumulate wealth and get richer. On the other hand, the people that refuse to be slaves to the government and work for a living will continuously get richer as they work throughout their lives. Therefore, the income gap will always get larger and larger, because the people on the bottom chose to be stagnate.

If the income gap was not getting larger, this would mean that the number of people permanently dependent on the state are growing in number faster than the number of people working to support them. This is unsustainable and will lead to economic and social collapse.

Too much Ayn Rand. That doesn't explain the growing difference between people who do work & those who mostly own.

See "Your Loss their gain"-

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

 

[blackangst1]

I remember there was a head of the USPTO once who said "there is nothing new under the sun".

Who stole that line from King Solomon

 

[Ns1]

Why punish success? So what if one day the top 1% holds 99% of all the wealth, they earned it. If you just redistribute it, people will have no incentive to work hard.

This

 

[Veliko]

It's pretty easy to understand, even for someone as uneducated as yourself. As long as the welfare state exists, people that stay on welfare for the entire lives never get richer. They are permanent dependents of the state. They will never accumulate wealth and get richer. On the other hand, the people that refuse to be slaves to the government and work for a living will continuously get richer as they work throughout their lives. Therefore, the income gap will always get larger and larger, because the people on the bottom chose to be stagnate.

If the income gap was not getting larger, this would mean that the number of people permanently dependent on the state are growing in number faster than the number of people working to support them. This is unsustainable and will lead to economic and social collapse.

Ah, you're an idiot who thinks that there are only two types of people in this world, doesn't understand poverty, and who believes that if he sucks up to the wealthy people for long enough, they might chuck him a bone or two.

Thanks for letting us know.

 

[Matt1970]

Too much Ayn Rand. That doesn't explain the growing difference between people who do work & those who mostly own.

See "Your Loss their gain"-

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Yep, everyone who is in the middle and lower classes are people who work as hard as they can and just can't seem to catch a break. None of them ever dropped out of school or decided on a career that didn't pay well. All those in the upper class had everything handed to them and they can just sit of their asses and live of dividends.

 

[piasabird]

Who decides what a fair share is?

How is this different from breaking into someone's house and stealing what they have?

Are you a thief?

 

[DominionSeraph]

I love it!
When a liberal states an opinion he's thinking for himself and enlightened and progressive.
When a conservative states an opinion he's a brainwashed propaganda junkie.

:hmm:

 

[chucky2]

Can't these rich people who advocate "the rich" pay more simply write a check to the IRS for whatever they feel the should already be paying? I could have sworn that option has already existed. If so, why is buffet and the rest of the rich who advocate higher taxes not paying their "fair share" already??? Shouldn't Buffet already be poor from doing so? Its weird, because you'd think that would have been in the news....

 

[shortylickens]

:hmm:

I grew up in Minnesota. Thinking for yourself means not necessarily going along with morons who like calling themselves "progressive". Acting stupid isnt progress.