The USA needs to increases taxes...

[Craig234]

Fixed for you.

You have a point. But it has paid off some debt long ago.

However, people who want to see some info on the debt might check this site:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Here's a hint of the facts:

 

[a777pilot]

I too think that government should be smaller, but selectively smaller. I also think taxes should be higher to meet the goal of both promoting growth while providing essential services. To that extent I believe in universal healthcare but I think that SS, Medicare and Medicaid need to be overhauled, streamlined, and to some extent eliminated in areas. Furthermore, I advocate cutting the armed force budget in half.

To label me a "liberal" only shows how much of a hypocrite you are, a777Hypocrite. However, that should be expected with regressives such as yourself.

Liberal was, as I said, an assumption. If you are not a liberal, then how would you describe your political affiliation.

I too think that government should be smaller, but selectively smaller. I also think taxes should be higher to meet the goal of both promoting growth while providing essential services. To that extent I believe in universal healthcare but I think that SS, Medicare and Medicaid need to be overhauled, streamlined, and to some extent eliminated in areas. Furthermore, I advocate cutting the armed force budget in half.

Interesting thoughts in there. I don't fully agree nor fully disagree.

 

[gaidensensei]

I'm not sure how already increasing our taxes will help out. A good chunk of our paychecks are already gone, the average working middle class citizen is struggling to make ends meet with the already high cost of living. Most bottom tiered citizens are living paycheck to paycheck. If they live in a major metropolitan area, housing costs skyrocket. If they move out to less condensed areas and states, income falls.

How is it fair for everyone to increase taxes? If they do, at least the cost of services and goods should drop in response.

 

[Tom]

Tax increases have NEVER been followed by spending cuts.

Anyone who think that we should raise taxes to cut the deficit is delusional. It won't happen. They will just take the new money and spend it.

The root problem is unwillingness to compromise; and the most consistent and dramatic barrier to negotiations is ruling out revenue increases before talks begin.

This has not always been the case, there used to be a lot more willingness to reach across the aisle, and that's what we need again.

Which is one reason that the Tea Party advocates are not helping; we need to actually do something, not just keep posturing.

 

[LegendKiller]

The root problem is unwillingness to compromise; and the most consistent and dramatic barrier to negotiations is ruling out revenue increases before talks begin.

This has not always been the case, there used to be a lot more willingness to reach across the aisle, and that's what we need again.

Which is one reason that the Tea Party advocates are not helping; we need to actually do something, not just keep posturing.

This. Moderating both sides is absolutely necessary.

 

[MotF Bane]

when you do the math we are all ready paying over 60% tax. Tax is income confiscation and time out of your life to pay for that confiscation. So how much time out of your life are you willing to give to the tax junkies??

I'd love to see your calculations for that.

 

[ArizonaSteve]

Short term and long term capital gains treated as income and taxed accordingly.
Additional tax bands for incomes over $500,000. Up to 70% for top earners.
100% inheritance tax over $5,000,000.
Removal of corporate tax loopholes and corporate welfare.

In short, f**k the rich like they've f**ked the rest of us for the last 30 years.

 

[a777pilot]

Short term and long term capital gains treated as income and taxed accordingly.
Additional tax bands for incomes over $500,000. Up to 70% for top earners.
100% inheritance tax over $5,000,000.
Removal of corporate tax loopholes and corporate welfare.

In short, f**k the rich like they've f**ked the rest of us for the last 30 years.

Great idea!

If you have a job, why not just quit it now and save the trouble of getting laid off under your plan?

 

[boochi]

Who controlled the purse strings during that nice little dip in the 90's?
Who controlled the purse strings from 2007 untill now?

Oops, I guess you didn't think of that did you?

 

[LegendKiller]

Who controlled the purse strings during that nice little dip in the 90's?
Who controlled the purse strings from 2007 untill now?

Oops, I guess you didn't think of that did you?

It takes two to tango. That dip in the 90s was because Clinton held the line on the debt. Newt and the rest of his merry band of fools wanted to spend the money, per Greenspan and official record.

 

[child of wonder]

Any increase in taxes needs to come in one of two forms:

1. Accompanied with cuts in spending
2. Simplification of the tax code to eliminate loopholes

 

[ArizonaSteve]

Great idea!

If you have a job, why not just quit it now and save the trouble of getting laid off under your plan?

It should be quite apparent after the last 30 years that supply-side economics and decreasing tax rates for the wealthy have done nothing to create jobs and increase salaries for those not in the top 1%. I'm simply advocating reversing the policies of the last 30 years.

Maybe if the wealthy see that nearly all their ill-gotten gains are going to the taxman, they'll use it instead to create jobs and raise salaries. Sounds logical to me.

Or maybe you're one of those people who think you have a hope in hell's chance of joining the super rich. Chances of that happening are miniscule.

 

[a777pilot]

Any increase in taxes needs to come in one of two forms:

1. Accompanied with cuts in spending
2. Simplification of the tax code to eliminate loopholes

I'll do you one better: The entire theory of taxation of the pass almost 100 years needs to be revised.

I opine that to tax income and/or property is contrary to the percepts of a free society.

 

[a777pilot]

It should be quite apparent after the last 30 years that supply-side economics and decreasing tax rates for the wealthy have done nothing to create jobs and increase salaries for those not in the top 1%. I'm simply advocating reversing the policies of the last 30 years.

Maybe if the wealthy see that nearly all their ill-gotten gains are going to the taxman, they'll use it instead to create jobs and raise salaries. Sounds logical to me.

Or maybe you're one of those people who think you have a hope in hell's chance of joining the super rich. Chances of that happening are miniscule.

What do you think the rich do with their "ill gotten" gains?

I will never be rich. I am missing that one seemingly essential ingredient that most rich have as the basis for their gains of wealth.

 

[ArizonaSteve]

They hoard it. How else would we have individuals worth upwards of $30 billion?

No one person contributes enough to society to be worth that much.

 

[boochi]

It takes two to tango. That dip in the 90s was because Clinton held the line on the debt. Newt and the rest of his merry band of fools wanted to spend the money, per Greenspan and official record.

It sure does seem like Newt and company tried to spend, spend, spend when held the strings.

 

[a777pilot]

It sure does seem like Newt and company tried to spend, spend, spend when held the strings.

I agree. Both spend way too much. It's that the Democrats spend even more than the Republicans. They are both at fault.

 

[LegendKiller]

It sure does seem like Newt and company tried to spend, spend, spend when held the strings.

They were told that any requests would be vetoed, they were pissed. Many think that's why they pressured Clinton with Lewinsky, despite Newt being far from the moral paragon he now tries to portray himself as. In fact, at the same time Slick Willy was dipping his cigars, Newty was doing the same to a chick other than his wife.

 

[LegendKiller]

I agree. Both spend way too much. It's that the Democrats spend even more than the Republicans. They are both at fault.

LOL, you're kidding me, right? Dem presidents didn't even get close to Reagan, Bush Sr., and GW in spending. In fact, ~75% of the current debt can be attributed to those 3.

 

[a777pilot]

They were told that any requests would be vetoed, they were pissed. Many think that's why they pressured Clinton with Lewinsky, despite Newt being far from the moral paragon he now tries to portray himself as. In fact, at the same time Slick Willy was dipping his cigars, Newty was doing the same to a chick other than his wife.

ROFLMAO!

They are both failed individuals, to that I will agree. But, of those two, which one lied to a Federal judge about it and lied under oath?

 

[a777pilot]

LOL, you're kidding me, right? Dem presidents didn't even get close to Reagan, Bush Sr., and GW in spending. In fact, ~75% of the current debt can be attributed to those 3.

None of those had anything to do with spending. You might want to spend some time studying who controls the purse strings.

 

[boochi]

None of those had anything to do with spending. You might want to spend some time studying who controls the purse strings.

Spending starts in the House. Legend and Craig will never understand this.

 

[Anubis]

no we just need to make people pay the current taxes, too many people get out of paying them. fix the deduction monkeying around and you fix a lot of issues

 

[woolfe9999]

Tax increases have NEVER been followed by spending cuts.

Anyone who think that we should raise taxes to cut the deficit is delusional. It won't happen. They will just take the new money and spend it.

Then pass the tax increases in the same bill as the spending cuts.

Conservatives are so ideological on this issue that if there was a bill right in front of them which cut $2 of spending for every $1 of tax increases they'd vote no on it. Because this isn't about balancing the budget. It never has been for the GOP.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Then pass the tax increases in the same bill as the spending cuts.

Conservatives are so ideological on this issue that if there was a bill right in front of them which cut $2 of spending for every $1 of tax increases they'd vote no on it. Because this isn't about balancing the budget. It never has been for politicians.

FTFY