What's the counter argument for why we shouldn't tax the rich?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Yeah, the "real world" where you think that raising taxes will "fix" things, when in reality if the gov't takes more money - they spend more money. But if you wish to continue to live in fantasy land...I can't stop you.

Actually, if the last 7 years have shown us anything its that it doesn't matter how much money the government receives. It'll just borrow all it can and spend like there is no tomorrow. The sad thing is this is coming from a republican administration...a party which repeatedly runs on smaller government and cutting spending. Its pathetic really.

So its you and the rest of the republicans who are living in fantasy land. If our country had a FICO score, I'd hate to see it...

Except I've been railing against the spending... not wanting more and more spending like the libs/Dems. Just because the R's suck at spending does not mean that their base is happy with it - I can tell you that they are not happy with it(and it doesn't take much looking to find examples)

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Yeah, the "real world" where you think that raising taxes will "fix" things, when in reality if the gov't takes more money - they spend more money. But if you wish to continue to live in fantasy land...I can't stop you.

Actually, if the last 7 years have shown us anything its that it doesn't matter how much money the government receives. It'll just borrow all it can and spend like there is no tomorrow. The sad thing is this is coming from a republican administration...a party which repeatedly runs on smaller government and cutting spending. Its pathetic really.

So its you and the rest of the republicans who are living in fantasy land. If our country had a FICO score, I'd hate to see it...

Except I've been railing against the spending... not wanting more and more spending like the libs/Dems. Just because the R's suck at spending does not mean that their base is happy with it - I can tell you that they are not happy with it(and it doesn't take much looking to find examples)

I believe that you've been railing against the spending. But there is a primary difference between the two parties. The repubs want to borrow and spend while the dems want to outright spend (or at least borrow to a significant lesser degree). I'll take the latter because it does a better job of not putting this country into further debt.

If the republicans would stop this borrow and spend business, I'd give them a long hard look.

 

[piasabird]

USA has the Highest Corporate taxes of any Nation. We also have the highest paid CEO's of any nation. How about a higher tax like 90% for all CEO's making over 10 million annual salary? These people are raping the stock holders and the board members are the ones doing it, so we should assess a 100 $ million fine on the boards of these CEO's as well. We can use the funds to help pay for people's housing. But not one dime should go to the banks we should just pay off the principal on people's home mortgages.

 

[piasabird]

How rich is rich? Is that anyone making over $50,000 or $$100,000. What is the cut-off? Who decides who is rich?

Before we out and out tax the rich out of the coutry to avoid the taxes, we should force Congress to pay back every dime they have stolen from SS. Then we can remove the SS Cap. If the poor man has to pay X Percent then the rich man should not have a cap! Without the cap wich is around $65,000 in pay annually, then if a CEO makes $50,000,000.00 like some Oil Company CEO's, then they could pay SS on all of their millions. That would put them on an even keel with the poor sucker on the street trying to get by on minimum wage or a meager $20,000.00 annually.

Some teachers who have worked their whole life in education, and may have even paid into SS enought to get it, will be forced to lose their SS because they receive a pension. Did you know that? Lets close the SS punishment for people who make very little money working in education teaching our kids.

 

[Jamie571]

Originally posted by: Vic
BTW, I work in banking and finance (as I'm sure you know). I've seen everyone's tax returns. You know why banks came up with those stated income aka 'liar loan' mortgages? Not to put people in homes they couldn't afford, but because wealthy business owners have so many write-offs and capital gains that they couldn't verify adequate income. Here's a not uncommon scenario: $750k house, $250k cash down, another half million or more in his portfolio, business receipts in excess of $1 million annually, drives a luxury car, owns multiple investment properties in town and a house on the coast, pays taxes on an adjusted gross of $40k a year.

Vic just described an acquaintance of mine to the letter, except add to the mix a small farm that he can show a loss on. This guy could honestly care less who is president because an income tax increase will not effect him.

My wife has a friend and along with her husband, brings in more than 350k a year on their W2s (medical doctors). They have a much lower quality of living than the acquaintance of mine. They have the 500k house, kids in private schools, high medical malpractice insurance premiums, and a couple of fat student loans (over 180k). They drive older cars and never seem to have any money. They are very concerned about an increase in income taxes.

The point being I have no problem raising the tax on the very rich, but a restructuring of the tax system should come first. Honestly the chances of that happening though are about the same as a congressman/woman not using the same tax loop holes.

Vic, have you been keeping up the sucessful Danish tax system in which Columbia University's Program on International Investment deemed it to have the best business environment on earth? Many of the ideas there are inline with most conservative economist apart from the overall high personal tax burden.

 

[sonicdrummer20]

This entire thread is hilarious, the only reason that we should not tax the rich more than the poor is simply because that is how communism works, punish those who work hard and treat them like people who can't or don't have the capability of earning more, then give the governbment all of the proceeds to "enrich" itself.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sonicdrummer20
This entire thread is hilarious, the only reason that we should not tax the rich more than the poor is simply because that is how communism works, punish those who work hard and treat them like people who can't or don't have the capability of earning more, then give the governbment all of the proceeds to "enrich" itself.

I'm so sick of the ideological wackos who say that the progressive tax system is like communism and 'punihses the rich'.

Want to know who 'punishes the rich'? Go talk to the guy who was one of the lucky few in Russia who bought up assets on the cheap when they followed our economic guidance on privatization, and became a billionare, and Putin decided he was competition for power and put him in a labor camp in Siberia. That's punishing the rich - and it was an exception, not the rule for rich people even there. Rich people in the US do very well, and pretty much every one of them depends on the larger society being prosperous for them to get rich.

Let's be clear here - in our times of long term debt, someone has to pay the taxes, and if you say the rich are being punihsed and don't want them paying the taxes, the you are saying you want the poor, or the middle class, or the less wealth above them, or later generations, or everyone who has dollars (because of inflation) to pay the taxes.

Why are you for 'punishing the working class' with higher taxes? What did they do to deserve punishment?

You can't just be against some tax level on the wealthy and preten you aren't shifting the burden somewhere.

And you can't get away with saying oh, but you're for lower spending, when that's not happening now - you need an 'if spending isn't cut' answer, too that means taxes.

I also find it interesting how devoid of any substance and actual numbers those posts against taxes on the wealthy are. It's *never* 'I'm for a 31% tax because'. It's *always* 'against higher/for lower' taxes, the most specific being the occassional 'leave them where they are at', but without any reason why that's the right number as the deficit skyrockets, taxing people later with interest. It's such childish blather.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: piasabird
How rich is rich? Is that anyone making over $50,000 or $$100,000. What is the cut-off? Who decides who is rich?

Depends on the context. Obviously it's just an opinion, but for tax purposes, I usually mean the top 1% or 2%; when talking about the real 'owning class', the 'ultra wealthy', I usually mean the top 0.01% (about 14,000 households IIRC). Those people's income increases are amazing given the rest of the nation - they are by far the highers increases (remember, percent, not flat dollars) of any other economic group.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Except I've been railing against the spending... not wanting more and more spending like the libs/Dems. Just because the R's suck at spending does not mean that their base is happy with it - I can tell you that they are not happy with it(and it doesn't take much looking to find examples)

Who cares if they're happy with it if they're not going to consider voting for the only other party to punish them - you know, the one whose presidents balanced the budget?

Are they so ideologically indoctrinated that they simply cannot vote for democrats no matter what the Republicans actually do in power? (Rhetorical question).

Obviously, the Republican leadership has held its voters in contempt - and for good reason.

And electing one of the wackos who might cut spending but have terrivle other policies (like most of the other candidates this year) isn't an answer, either.

You guys need another Eisenhower, and I don't see any who are in the running.

The quality of Republican leaders for 25 years has been a disaster IMO - most are some combination of nuts and incompetent, and the few competent ones are bastards (e.g. Newt). DeLay defies description - a hypocritical, self-righteous man who steals and prevents the legislation pass by BOTH parties in the Senate to help the slave labor conditions in our territory the Marianas Islands because he was paid by the factory owners one minue, and literally preaches a sermon the next. Dick Armey terrible, Giuliani who leves slime on the ground and can say little more than '9/11', exploiting the tragedy for his own gain, Romney and McCain who show no principles in so many positions, switiching them for political concvenience, all of them trying to call for MORE torture to drown out the lone voice of Ron Paul, on and on.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[lol - how did I know you were going to whine about Iraq. It's like it's a programmed response from you people.

No, it's like talking about Watergate during the 1970's in conversations about political corruption. It's the obvious area these things are happening in.

It's so funny, you righties can say so little but how the other people talk about the problems. When points are made about Bush, you won't discuss the points, you try to make the issue 'you're talkng about Bush agian'. Well, duh. When the topic is something the Iraq War greatly dominates and it's discussed, you don't want to discuss the points the person made, you want to make the issue 'you're talking about Iraq again'. Well, duh.

I guess the issues are so difficult to defend now, that you can say little other than to try to attack the person bringing up the facts. How sad.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Except I've been railing against the spending... not wanting more and more spending like the libs/Dems. Just because the R's suck at spending does not mean that their base is happy with it - I can tell you that they are not happy with it(and it doesn't take much looking to find examples)

Who cares if they're happy with it if they're not going to consider voting for the only other party to punish them - you know, the one whose presidents balanced the budget?

Are they so ideologically indoctrinated that they simply cannot vote for democrats no matter what the Republicans actually do in power? (Rhetorical question).

Obviously, the Republican leadership has held its voters in contempt - and for good reason.

And electing one of the wackos who might cut spending but have terrivle other policies (like most of the other candidates this year) isn't an answer, either.

You guys need another Eisenhower, and I don't see any who are in the running.

The quality of Republican leaders for 25 years has been a disaster IMO - most are some combination of nuts and incompetent, and the few competent ones are bastards (e.g. Newt). DeLay defies description - a hypocritical, self-righteous man who steals and prevents the legislation pass by BOTH parties in the Senate to help the slave labor conditions in our territory the Marianas Islands because he was paid by the factory owners one minue, and literally preaches a sermon the next. Dick Armey terrible, Giuliani who leves slime on the ground and can say little more than '9/11', exploiting the tragedy for his own gain, Romney and McCain who show no principles in so many positions, switiching them for political concvenience, all of them trying to call for MORE torture to drown out the lone voice of Ron Paul, on and on.

So let me get this straight. A Conservative who doesn't like the fact that the R's suck at spending is too "ideologically indoctrinated" if they don't vote for a Democrat? Uhhh... Sorry but when your choice is crap(R's spending) and shit(D's spending) I don't think voting for either is the right call.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

So let me get this straight. A Conservative who doesn't like the fact that the R's suck at spending is too "ideologically indoctrinated" if they don't vote for a Democrat? Uhhh... Sorry but when your choice is crap(R's spending) and shit(D's spending) I don't think voting for either is the right call.

What I'm criticizing is when people won't even do the analysis on spending policy bwtween the parties, won't even consider voting 'D', for ideological reasons.

I'm not saying you have to quickly make the leap without consideration - there are a lot of reasons for voting for a party. But if you will not vote D no matter how bad R's get, that's the problem I'm talking about. At that point, you're not being a rational citizen, and you're blocking good policies. You're supposed to add water to the kool-aid.

While I'm a staunch Democrat who doesn't expect to vote R again anytime soon, it's based on an analysis of the parties that strongly agrees with one side, not because the democrats are behaving terribly and against my positions but I simply won't vote R even if they are doing better to implement my preferred policies. Since Clinton balanced the budget and had a big 'waste cutting' program, while R's are behaving terribly regarding corrupt big spending, are you going to consider voting D, if they are closer to your stated positions?

If the R's became the party who passed policies more in agreement with my views, I'd vote R.

Or are you just going to not vote D regardless, because you have an ideological orientation that just keeps you from looking at the comparison?

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

So let me get this straight. A Conservative who doesn't like the fact that the R's suck at spending is too "ideologically indoctrinated" if they don't vote for a Democrat? Uhhh... Sorry but when your choice is crap(R's spending) and shit(D's spending) I don't think voting for either is the right call.

What I'm criticizing is when people won't even do the analysis on spending policy bwtween the parties, won't even consider voting 'D', for ideological reasons.

I'm not saying you have to quickly make the leap without consideration - there are a lot of reasons for voting for a party. But if you will not vote D no matter how bad R's get, that's the problem I'm talking about. At that point, you're not being a rational citizen, and you're blocking good policies. You're supposed to add water to the kool-aid.

While I'm a staunch Democrat who doesn't expect to vote R again anytime soon, it's based on an analysis of the parties that strongly agrees with one side, not because the democrats are behaving terribly and against my positions but I simply won't vote R even if they are doing better to implement my preferred policies. Since Clinton balanced the budget and had a big 'waste cutting' program, while R's are behaving terribly regarding corrupt big spending, are you going to consider voting D, if they are closer to your stated positions?

If the R's became the party who passed policies more in agreement with my views, I'd vote R.

Or are you just going to not vote D regardless, because you have an ideological orientation that just keeps you from looking at the comparison?

Notice how it is always the Republicans which lean across the aisle, implement power-sharing when they are the majority, and make deals with liberals for nothing in return. It never goes the other way. Republicans are more willing to be naive political partners, while Democrats never compromise their views under any circumstances, even when it makes them look completely asinine (e.g. Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, et. al.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

So let me get this straight. A Conservative who doesn't like the fact that the R's suck at spending is too "ideologically indoctrinated" if they don't vote for a Democrat? Uhhh... Sorry but when your choice is crap(R's spending) and shit(D's spending) I don't think voting for either is the right call.

What I'm criticizing is when people won't even do the analysis on spending policy bwtween the parties, won't even consider voting 'D', for ideological reasons.

I'm not saying you have to quickly make the leap without consideration - there are a lot of reasons for voting for a party. But if you will not vote D no matter how bad R's get, that's the problem I'm talking about. At that point, you're not being a rational citizen, and you're blocking good policies. You're supposed to add water to the kool-aid.

While I'm a staunch Democrat who doesn't expect to vote R again anytime soon, it's based on an analysis of the parties that strongly agrees with one side, not because the democrats are behaving terribly and against my positions but I simply won't vote R even if they are doing better to implement my preferred policies. Since Clinton balanced the budget and had a big 'waste cutting' program, while R's are behaving terribly regarding corrupt big spending, are you going to consider voting D, if they are closer to your stated positions?

If the R's became the party who passed policies more in agreement with my views, I'd vote R.

Or are you just going to not vote D regardless, because you have an ideological orientation that just keeps you from looking at the comparison?

Notice how it is always the Republicans which lean across the aisle, implement power-sharing when they are the majority, and make deals with liberals for nothing in return. It never goes the other way. Republicans are more willing to be naive political partners, while Democrats never compromise their views under any circumstances, even when it makes them look completely asinine (e.g. Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, et. al.)

Yeah, that's it. :roll:

(I think you missed the part above where he explained that if you're determined to swill the Kool-Aid, you really need to add water first.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

So let me get this straight. A Conservative who doesn't like the fact that the R's suck at spending is too "ideologically indoctrinated" if they don't vote for a Democrat? Uhhh... Sorry but when your choice is crap(R's spending) and shit(D's spending) I don't think voting for either is the right call.

What I'm criticizing is when people won't even do the analysis on spending policy bwtween the parties, won't even consider voting 'D', for ideological reasons.

I'm not saying you have to quickly make the leap without consideration - there are a lot of reasons for voting for a party. But if you will not vote D no matter how bad R's get, that's the problem I'm talking about. At that point, you're not being a rational citizen, and you're blocking good policies. You're supposed to add water to the kool-aid.

While I'm a staunch Democrat who doesn't expect to vote R again anytime soon, it's based on an analysis of the parties that strongly agrees with one side, not because the democrats are behaving terribly and against my positions but I simply won't vote R even if they are doing better to implement my preferred policies. Since Clinton balanced the budget and had a big 'waste cutting' program, while R's are behaving terribly regarding corrupt big spending, are you going to consider voting D, if they are closer to your stated positions?

If the R's became the party who passed policies more in agreement with my views, I'd vote R.

Or are you just going to not vote D regardless, because you have an ideological orientation that just keeps you from looking at the comparison?

Yes, I will not vote D nationally due to many issues. State and locally - more often than not it's about who they are and what they stand for. However national politics aren't about the individual who represents us for the most part so you have to have a broader view. In this specific area(fiscal) both suck so it obviously won't be a deciding factor in my vote. If the D's start holding more Conservative positions - they will get a look but they are currently not even close IMO.