Do you have no common sense or are you just being a troll? What's the incentive to earn more than a million if you're going to tax it 90%? Why wouldn't you just move to Canada or Europe? Do you realize it would kill the tax base and you'd have no money to pay for you social welfare programs?
IMO it takes a very greedy person to begin with if they really want to earn more than $1M per year. I think in most cases it happens due to good luck.
I don't think it would kill the tax base. I think it would help pay down the massive debts in the US and could be used on a short term basis to prevent the nation from going bankrupt.
It's not a matter of opinion. It's fact that those earners will disappear. Then it will send the US down a spiral.
So you think sucessful people are greedy? Obama must be one greedy motherfucker, he made $4.2 million in 2007. Clinton? They made $100+ million in 8 years.
This is right. Most of us probably remember what happens in Sim City when you jack the tax rate to 20%. Everybody leaves and the revenue collected goes to zero.
IMO, tax cuts should start at the lowest class. If the current amount you're allowed to earn before paying taxes is $10,000 it should be raised to a higher number like $11,000 or $12,000. I don't know where your taxes start in the US but you get the idea.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
I'm not an american so I had to google around to see what you're talking about.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclo...the_united_states.html
haha, that's so Ron Paul!
Like I said before. Time to let the democrats seal their own fate by outspending the republicans. As stupid and sad as this sounds, the conservatives under Bush will look fiscally sound in 4 years compared to what we will see.
Oh, then it's a fact that when the top marginal rate was 90%+ for many years, as in the 50's, that those earners disappeared, and the US went down in a spiral. Right?
'It's not opinion it's fact' might sound snappy to you, but it sure destroys your own argument when the facts so clearly show you to be wrong.
You don't disprove statements about groups with anecdotes.
The wealthy *behave* in a greedy manner, naturally.
The fact is that their influence in general works to increase their wealth yet further, often at the reckless expense of most Americans.
There are Bill Gates who gives money for charity and Warren Buffet who speaks out for liberal economic policies to benefit the average American, but they are countered by the Campbells and Wal-Marts fighting for self-interested policies, the Coors and Scaifes funding powerful political organizations to push policies of greed.
The facts speak for themselves that during the right-wing era since Reagan, the bottom 80% have gotten about zero after inflation, while the top 0.01% go up hundreds of percent.
That, is the policy of greed.
Get over yourself Craig. Anybody advocating a politician steal from these greedy rich to give to them is worse. Because they wont even bother to go and earn that money. They want a 3rd party to take it from somebody else at the end of a gun while they catch the next American Idol episode. That is greed, laziness, and envy.
You're an idiot, genx87, as has been clear for years. You don't understand the first concept about the issues with excessive concentration of wealth.
Whether a hard-worknig American is in poverty or solidly middle class is largely an effect of whether the public policies are right-wing or liberal.
A century ago, when our nation first experienced the great wealth following the industrial revolution, the results were in: most Americans were in poverty, average income $10,000.
The great concentration of wealth, exacerbated by the wealthy dominating the government and implementing rght-wing policies, led to the progressive era backlash.
Only then did the average American start to do better, as liberal policies made the American dream available and created most of the middle class throughout the 'liberal era'.
All through the most liberal periods, the nation had wealthy people prosper, and the economy had good growth (better than the Republicans). What we did not have were the abuses of the huge concentrations of wealth and the lack of opportunity caused by it as under the Republican policies, with the concentration of wealth peaking twice - just before the great depression, and today.
You don't know what the hell you are talking about as you parrot the propaganda supporting right-wing policies, and you are the enemy of the average American.
Your positions would do nothing but increase the concentration of wealth and further harm the economic interests of most Americans. You have no business posting the nonsense.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
I guess it comes down to if you think the US is in an economic crisis or not. If the country is in a crisis, now is not the time to cut spending.
If you think the country is not in trouble, it make senses to cut spending.
Do you think the US is in an economic crisis? If you were the incoming US President what would you do?
But I'm sure you'll claim that nothing's his fault for years to come! Bush Denial Syndrome, indeed!
:laugh:
Dude, you're hysterical!
The funniest part about you Craig is you are so god damned blind to your ideology you miss the bigger point. While you ramble on about concentrations of wealth in the private sector. You advocate the exapnding of the biggest concentration of wealth which is govt. What private industry can match the wealth of the federal govt? What private industry can match the power of govt?
You will complain about patriot acts and wars. But enable that entity more power through your own doing.
Yeah the avg American did so well under Jimmy Carter right? How high was inflation when he left? This right winged policy BS is amusing as well. Bush, a big right wing economist eh? Expands social benefit roles and increases the progressiveness of our income tax.
My positions are people should work to earn their wealth. Not expect the nanny state to provide it. Long term an entitlement society will fail as nobody wants to work for their wealth when it is easier to have it stolen. This is basic human behavior.
Our economy goes through economic cycles. Why do we spend billions and trillions fighting it? Does it ultimately help to increase our debt load like this to stop an economic downturn?
We have already spent nearly 1 trillion to keep the banks in business and stimulate demand with stimulus checks. How has that worked out for us? You think spending another 3-4 trillion will finally fix it? If so, for how long? Until inflation catches upto us?
Let's see here ... Bush inherited a $128 Billion surplus from Clinton, managed to post deficits every single year, he's now handing over a $1/2 Trillion deficit for '09 to Obama, who hasn't even taken office yet, and some idiot comes along and blames Obama for not balancing the budget. Wow! Only at P&N would you see something as asinine as this! Congrats OP! You've managed to set the bar ever lower.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Clinton can't really be completely credited with the budget surplus. Congress writes the budget, which was Republican controlled at the time.
edit: Also it helped that there was less spending on military due to the Cold War being over and one-time capital gains taxes created by the stock market bubble of 1999.
Your sentiments are 100% dead-on but your numbers are off.
The unified Federal Budget surplus for FY 2000 was $237 billion. The projected deficit for the current fiscal year is now approaching $1 trillion.
From 1998 forward to FY2000 the US paid down $363 billion in Federal debt. Over the last 3 years (since January 20, 2006) Federal Debt has increased $2.46 trillion to a current $10.636 trillion (up over $500 billion since October 1st).
The Federal Debt to the Penny from the US Treasury.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
and people forget that there was artificial bubbles that kept the economy going. The bubbles should have popped years ago but didnt. and it is causing a lot of problems.
i do find it funny that everyone was saying how bad bush is/was for the deficit yet say its ok for obama to say we will have major ones for years.
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter