Budget talks collapse, the GOP bails, blames democrats

[ProfJohn]

I am positive, the debt ceiling will be raised when it needs to be raised to prevent a default of US government debt this year. I have no doubt of it whatsoever.

I 100% agree.

They will raise the ceiling, agree to some minor cuts and then punt till 2013.

 

[ProfJohn]

Is this a great country or what? People earning 1000X the incomes of the top 95-99% pay basically the same tax rates

So how much in taxes should a guy making $100 million a year pay?


BTW if you really think someone is paying me to post on here then you are an idiot.

 

[Jhhnn]

So how much in taxes should a guy making $100 million a year pay?

A lot more than $17M.

Tell you what- let's put it up for bids- the guys who agree to pay the most in taxes get to make the most money.

I'll bid 60% federal taxes on that $100M, but I'm not greedy. Tell you what- I'll bid 80% to get the money that the top hedge fund manager made in 2010, $5B.

It'd break my heart to clear $1B in a single year, ~5,000X what the average guy earns in a lifetime. Tears in my eyes as big as horseturds, I'm tellin' ya...

You? Get paid to post right wing drivel? I was only joking. You're not good enough. The guy in the article you linked *is* good enough, and is paid handsomely for his efforts at sheer dishonesty. Some people will say anything for the right money.

 

[Engineer]

A lot more than $17M.

Tell you what- let's put it up for bids- the guys who agree to pay the most in taxes get to make the most money.

I'll bid 60% federal taxes on that $100M, but I'm not greedy. Tell you what- I'll bid 80% to get the money that the top hedge fund manager made in 2010, $5B.

It'd break my heart to clear $1B in a single year, ~5,000X what the average guy earns in a lifetime. Tears in my eyes as big as horseturds, I'm tellin' ya...

You? Get paid to post right wing drivel? I was only joking. You're not good enough. The guy in the article you linked *is* good enough, and is paid handsomely for his efforts at sheer dishonesty. Some people will say anything for the right money.

I would make that trade too and LOL @ section #2 of your post! :biggrin:

 

[ProfJohn]

A lot more than $17M.

How much specifically? For a guy making $100 million?

How about a baseball player getting a salary of $20 million.

What should their effective tax rate be?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd support raising federal tax rates for the top 25% of earners to what they were pre-Reagan, maybe slightly for those in the 50-75% range, not at all for those at or below the 50% mark because of their loss of income share & because of increases in other taxes we all pay. I'd also support another higher bracket for people in the top .1% and even higher for the top .01%.

We have a great country, a rich country, and part of that is that we still have relatively good government, which won't stay that way if we starve it to death, saddle it with debt. Egalitarian democracy can't survive with a govt slaved to an oligarchic financial elite, and can't serve the role that modern govt needs to fulfill on the amount of revenue Repubs say they want, either.

We still have a choice- we can be more like Brazil & Mexico, or more like Germany, France & the Nordic countries. We can't be both at the same time, at least not for long, because the accumulated debt of doing so will destroy us. Then we'll necessarily have no choice but to be like Brazil & Mexico, which is really what Repubs want.

Think I'm nuts? Hardly. The Ryan budget, universally supported by repub politicos other than Gingrich, is what's nuts. America's wealthiest would pay nearly no taxes at all. It'd be like the middle ages, where the peasants paid protection money to the nobility.

If that's not what they want, then why are they saying it is?

 

[SilentAlfa]

How much specifically? For a guy making $100 million?

How about a baseball player getting a salary of $20 million.

What should their effective tax rate be?

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Rich people survived paying 90% marginal tax rate under Eisenhower and the economy was great back then. They can survive whatever tax increases we levy on them. I know people like to break out the "but they earned that money" argument, but as for the baseball player making $20 million? Does he objectively do work equal to that of 2000 farmers making minimum wage? The hedge fund manager who makes $5 billion a year, is his work objectively worth that of 100,000 teachers making $50,000 a year?

 

[HendrixFan]

You are forget the earned income credit.

That is a tax refund that exceeds the amount of taxes they actually paid.
i.e. You make $10,000 and pay $100 in taxes and your refund is $150.

Therefore it is a negative income tax because you get more back than you paid in.
An example

I know that, but that is exactly what I mean. It is a refundable tax credit, just like higher education is now. I was specifically talking about the Earned Income Credit (EIC). It shouldn't be counted as a "negative" tax, because it is silly to do so. Call it what it is, welfare. It is a welfare check. You do that and you lose the benefit of calling it a negative tax.

The Republicans love the EIC because it appeases the masses, and it also allows them to run wild with tax numbers for their base. Once you throw negative numbers into tax rates you really, really skew the data. There are plenty of people in my income range that pay a substantial amount of income tax, but statistically are part of a group that "pay no income tax".

Also, you posted this nifty chart:

but you failed to account for the fact that the wealthiest individuals don't have the majority of their money come from earned income.

 

[ProfJohn]

We have a great country, a rich country, and part of that is that we still have relatively good government, which won't stay that way if we starve it to death, saddle it with debt. Egalitarian democracy can't survive with a govt slaved to an oligarchic financial elite, and can't serve the role that modern govt needs to fulfill on the amount of revenue Repubs say they want, either.

Did we have a good government when Clinton was in office and spending was at 18% of GDP??

There is NO way we can afford to continue having the Feds spend 25% of the GDP and state and local spend another 20%.

We are at a point now where 45% of our GDP is spent by the government. And when you add in the cost of government regulations to business then the cost of government rises to over 50% of our GDP. Big problem!!

We need to return spending to the 19-20% of GDP range and then we need to work on ways to ensure enough revenue to maintain that rate without adding on debt forever.