And it's a bad one.
It's Dems usual response: massive tax hikes.
Wexler's proposal exposes Democrats' Social Security problem
It's Dems usual response: massive tax hikes.
Wexler's proposal exposes Democrats' Social Security problem
Dems propose idea to fix SS
- Thread starter Riprorin
- Start date
Ya think it may be because the Bushwhackos are actively pursuing class warfare, pitting the wealthy few against everyone trying to earn a living and support their kids?
Can you say Enron and Haliburton, boys and girls?
Can you say Tom DeLay?
Can you say tax cuts for the top 1% of all Americans, most of whom just happen to be major Bush contributors?
Can you say shread environmental safeguards to benefit big energy?
Can you say pandering whores for the religious whack jobs?
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Well, I am very confident that if the Rich take a sizeable hit, the poor and middle class will feel much better, because they know the rich can afford it.
Now to continue, I run a small business and I have become quite accustomed to the lifestyle that it affords.
What do you suppose I am going to do to compensate for the new tax that I must now pay if my tax rate is raised?
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Ayup, and the poor and the middle class, my customers, are going to pay the price.
Only in America.
When the Government needs more money to pay for the things promised to its good citizens, here is the solution.
Raise tax rates on the Rich, the poor and middle class foot the bill, and THEY FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT.
Who was it that came up with this Idea?
remember, the more the rich pay into SS, the more the goverment has to pay out to the rich later.
How about we just take away all the money an idividual earns over say, $250,000 annually. Use half of it to pay down the debt and apply the rest to public programs.
I'm sure the majority of Americans would support that. Definitly over 51%. Isn't that the rule the GOP is going by these days?? :laugh: yuk, yuk, yuk :laugh:
I'm sure the majority of Americans would support that. Definitly over 51%. Isn't that the rule the GOP is going by these days?? :laugh: yuk, yuk, yuk :laugh:
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Ayup, and the poor and the middle class, my customers, are going to pay the price.
Only in America.
When the Government needs more money to pay for the things promised to its good citizens, here is the solution.
Raise tax rates on the Rich, the poor and middle class foot the bill, and THEY FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT.
Who was it that came up with this Idea?
Except in a free market economy the lowest price provider will succeed so that unless you have a monopoly on business there will always be someone who is willing to provide the service or good at a lower price at a lower profit center to the owner and if you raise your price to accomidate "your lifestyle" a company like walmart or another national provider will eat your business for lunch.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Ayup, and the poor and the middle class, my customers, are going to pay the price.
Only in America.
When the Government needs more money to pay for the things promised to its good citizens, here is the solution.
Raise tax rates on the Rich, the poor and middle class foot the bill, and THEY FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT.
Who was it that came up with this Idea?
Except in a free market economy the lowest price provider will succeed so that unless you have a monopoly on business there will always be someone who is willing to provide the service or good at a lower price at a lower profit center to the owner and if you raise your price to accomidate "your lifestyle" a company like walmart or another national provider will eat your business for lunch.
I compete with like-minded individuals that think just like me.
I have never felt like I pay tax. I consider myself a middle-man for the government. I take tax money from the poor and middle class and give it to the government. :thumbsup:
If walmart and the evil corporations of america take over my business and the ones I compete with, then you will just have to start taxing walmart and the evil corporations. Guess who gets to pay that bill? :laugh: I own some Walmart, so I know it won't be me. Heh.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Discretionary income is what motivates the purchase of items that ultimately provide for the job security of the working class. If someone has the discretionary income to purchase goods or services that they would not otherwise be able to afford, it creates a market and jobs to provide said goods and services.
In raising taxes, you are cutting into the discretionary income pool. For the most affluent, this is probably not such an issue. But for middle class consumers, and even the working class, this is a huge issue.
One of the driving factors of the economic growth witnessed during the 1990s was that you had middle class consumers with the financial security to spend money on goods and services that until then were only attainable for the most wealthy. Again, this was partially due to the strength of the stock market at the time, which in turn was being inflated by the smoke and mirrors investment insanity of the dot.com era.
That being said, raising taxes ultimately cuts into the spending trends of the middle class...decreased demand for goods and services causes those companies that provide them to cut back, which includes layoffs and of course outsourcing.
When will people learn that the various classes of our society are all linked economically...you cannot put into place financial policies that benefit one segment of our society without infringing on another...so while the Bush model of tax cuts for the rich helps the most affluent of our nation and places faith in the concept of trickle down economics, which may or may not help the working and middle class...similarly, the Democrats approach of raising taxes may be to the benefit of the working class, but it means the affluent and middle class take the biggest hit.
Ironically in all of this, it is usually the middle class that gets screwed.
In raising taxes, you are cutting into the discretionary income pool. For the most affluent, this is probably not such an issue. But for middle class consumers, and even the working class, this is a huge issue.
One of the driving factors of the economic growth witnessed during the 1990s was that you had middle class consumers with the financial security to spend money on goods and services that until then were only attainable for the most wealthy. Again, this was partially due to the strength of the stock market at the time, which in turn was being inflated by the smoke and mirrors investment insanity of the dot.com era.
That being said, raising taxes ultimately cuts into the spending trends of the middle class...decreased demand for goods and services causes those companies that provide them to cut back, which includes layoffs and of course outsourcing.
When will people learn that the various classes of our society are all linked economically...you cannot put into place financial policies that benefit one segment of our society without infringing on another...so while the Bush model of tax cuts for the rich helps the most affluent of our nation and places faith in the concept of trickle down economics, which may or may not help the working and middle class...similarly, the Democrats approach of raising taxes may be to the benefit of the working class, but it means the affluent and middle class take the biggest hit.
Ironically in all of this, it is usually the middle class that gets screwed.
As opposed to the Repub's, the Dem's like tax hikes for the rich, not tax cuts. Hey, it works for me.
Ah yes, the old "bashing the Democrats for wanting to raise taxes" rant. But here is the problem. When you need money for something, there are a few ways to deal with the issue. One is to get more money overall. Two is to spend less somewhere else so you have more for the things you need. Three is to just spend the money and worry about paying for it later. Four is to not spend the money.
Now let's ignore for a second the fact that SS could have been run so that it wouldn't run out of money. It's not a government handout, after all, people pay money into it, then they get money out of it later in life. Set up and run properly, the government should have to spend very little money, right? In any case, nobody seems interested in solution 2, which would make the most sense. So the democrats propose solution 1, and get bashed for it. Ok, fine. And the Republican solution is a combination of 3 and 4. First they won't raise taxes, despite not having enough money. But to actually fix the problem, they suggest moving the money into private accounts. Excellent idea, it would have been great at the beginning. Except there isn't enough money, otherwise there wouldn't be an issue. The problem with social security is that, fundamentally, there isn't enough money to pay people who will be retiring soon. Private accounts would certainly fix the problem of government idiocy pissing away all my money, but nobody has explained how it will help people who are going to retire relativly soon.
Now let's ignore for a second the fact that SS could have been run so that it wouldn't run out of money. It's not a government handout, after all, people pay money into it, then they get money out of it later in life. Set up and run properly, the government should have to spend very little money, right? In any case, nobody seems interested in solution 2, which would make the most sense. So the democrats propose solution 1, and get bashed for it. Ok, fine. And the Republican solution is a combination of 3 and 4. First they won't raise taxes, despite not having enough money. But to actually fix the problem, they suggest moving the money into private accounts. Excellent idea, it would have been great at the beginning. Except there isn't enough money, otherwise there wouldn't be an issue. The problem with social security is that, fundamentally, there isn't enough money to pay people who will be retiring soon. Private accounts would certainly fix the problem of government idiocy pissing away all my money, but nobody has explained how it will help people who are going to retire relativly soon.
Short term financing of 2T is cheaper than the long term unfunded requirements of 10T. This has been stated several times. Private accounts greatly reduce the long term problem. The short term problem we are just going to have to deal with.
So why not gradually introduce private accounts? SS needs some changes, but it all doesn't have to happen overnight.
honestly, what does it matter what the democrats propose? they're in the minority.
they could have genious ideas popping out every 30 seconds and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it because they'd face partisan opposition.
they could have genious ideas popping out every 30 seconds and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it because they'd face partisan opposition.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter