Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes

[akirby]

That's just a cop out that people use. It's the people who are at fault. They elect people to form governments. They're the ones who put up with the things that go on. Blaming everything on government is just a way for people to make themselves feel better about the situation.

 

You obviously missed the point. The problem is all of the Republicans AND Democrats in Congress over the last 10 years. The Republicans haven't tried to raise taxes or increase government size but they also have not tried to shrink it or cut spending. The Democrats want to increase taxes and increase spending.

 

We keep electing different people with the same results. The problem is our 2 party system has turned into a college football game where the only goal is to beat the other team and to hell with the country. Moderates can't get past their party's primaries - you have to toe the party line to even have a chance.

 

So sure - you can blame the voters for electing them but I blame the incumbents for being more worried about getting re-elected than doing what's needed because what's needed (big spending cuts) is unpopular with their voters.

 

That's why the Tea Party is gaining popularity and why they get attacked by both sides because they're not seeking to maintain the status quo.

 

So you're right - it's not "government". In this case I put the blame squarely on current Congress members who refuse to do the right thing. And as voters we should correct that.

 

How big a hole do we have to dig before we realize we're too deep to get out?

[Edstock]

But you know, pointing out inequities that glaring assumes there is some culturally shared sense of right and wrong left to appeal to. That appears to not be the case. The 16th century proverb "Every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost" (contrary to Tea Party belief, those words did not come from The Sermon on the Mount) for centuries was understood as a moral caution against the collapse of civil society into anarchy. Today, it could just as easily serve as the Republican Party slogan. The hand-wringing over the plight of the wealthy really has taken on a bizarre, almost macabre aspect - completely divorced from reality or moral foundation. Wake up from your thrall.

Precisely. What's even sillier about the "hand-wringing over the plight of the wealthy"is that the poor conservatives who are also victims of the oligarchs, are the most energetic in defending their oppressors. Their stridency in defence of something that patently is a failure for "lamestream" America, to use their jargon, is understandable — the last thing they can afford to do is acknowledge to themselves that they've been had.

[fordmantpw]

Corrections

 

My favorite is the little girl and her dad. They're walking home and encounter a homeless man on the street.

 

"Daddy - can we give the man some money so he can buy some food?"

 

"I'll make a deal with you honey. The leaves need to be raked in the front yard. If you'll go home and rake the leaves I'll give you $20. Then you can come back here and give the man your $20 so he can buy food."

 

The little girl thinks for a minute and says "Hey, you dirty bum, get off your ass and get a f'ing job"

 

"Congratulations honey - you're a Republican!"

 

 

 

 

Ummm, why is that a problem? Seriously! Isn't that how you make money, by getting a job?!

 

Even my daughter gets it, and she is 8! She didn't ask us for a raise in her allowance for doing the same thing, she asked me to take her to the local grocery store so she could get a job so she could have more money. Seriously, that is the way the world should work...it's not based on hand-outs!

[suv_guy_19]

So sure - you can blame the voters for electing them but I blame the incumbents for being more worried about getting re-elected than doing what's needed because what's needed (big spending cuts) is unpopular with their voters.

 

Which again, comes back to my main point. It's the voters fault. If they didn't demand such often contradictory things, there wouldn't be the problems that there is.

[akirby]

Which again, comes back to my main point. It's the voters fault. If they didn't demand such often contradictory things, there wouldn't be the problems that there is.

 

I agree but once you're elected your obligation should be to make decisions that are in the best interest of the country, not your own. And our current crop of Congress people have failed miserably in that regard for quite some time.

 

Maybe the Tea Party will offer some candidates that will do what's needed regardless of their political affiliation.

[fordmantpw]

I agree but once you're elected your obligation should be to make decisions that are in the best interest of the country, not your own. And our current crop of Congress people have failed miserably in that regard for quite some time.

 

Maybe the Tea Party will offer some candidates that will do what's needed regardless of their political affiliation.

 

Hopefully so, but for how long? And they will have to overcome the rest of congress that still wants to further their own agenda.

[akirby]

Does a rich person use more military protection than a middle class person? YES!!! Read history.

Does a rich person get more representation in Congress than a middle class person (bodies, not influence - 2 different things)? Influence yes. more important than bodies

Does a rich person use more federal highways than a middle class person? yes, he does statistically.

 

Wow - if you really believe that then you are delusional and have no connection to reality. I think you just don't like to admit that you are 100% responsible for your own destiny. Instead you constantly look for excuses and other people to blame for your lack of fulfillment. It's a lot easier to blame someone else than to blame yourself.

[akirby]

Hopefully so, but for how long? And they will have to overcome the rest of congress that still wants to further their own agenda.

 

I hope that what happens is the candidates who run under specific promises to reduce spending get elected and that sends a clear signal to the others that they need to get in line or they'll be voted out next time.

 

It will be curious to see how much support the Republican Tea Party backed candidates get from the RNC.

 

But this is as close to a change as we've been since I can remember. Maybe it's time for a 3rd party that's closer to the middle.

[goinbroke2]

Anytime people try to increase taxation rates for the wealthy, they forget that this encourages those people to

minimize tax through deductions and investments. Wealthy people will do this because of the amounts involved.

So it really doesn't matter a fig what the tax rate is if the person's accounts are skillfully managed to eliminate the

tax that would normally be paid on the upper income areas...

 

I'm not saying that it's right or wrong to do that, just that it seems a futile waste of time to try to charge higher rates

than seems fair to a lot of people...in the long run, it's better to have a simpler and fairer system....

 

A better system would charge much lower rates of tax but prevent investors and business from negative gearing

which can allow investors and business to wipe out nearly all of their tax bill through claiming legitimate deductions.

 

Exactly right JPD, that's why I'm just watching and laughing and not debating. I said my piece. I pay a lot of taxes then get them returned to me through legal means. Tax me more, I'll find other avenues to increase my tax return. Already done the COIP, got a shitload back, I'll just find another place. Oh and yes the P in COIP in philanthropy.

[suv_guy_19]

I agree but once you're elected your obligation should be to make decisions that are in the best interest of the country, not your own.

 

I agree, and that's one of the major problems that I have with populists movements like the Tea Party, or other organizations on either side. They spend so much time trying to influence the cowards they elected, and as a result, the people in congress become afraid and they do what they want them to do, and so nothing gets done.

 

It's like the debt ceiling debate. I don't think you'll get much argument that the deficit needs to be brought down, but the debt ceiling had to be raised....that almost didn't happen. Sometimes, people in Congress have to be allowed to make decisions, even if they aren't popular, and populists movements too often have a negative impact on the legislative process. I think it's also partly the result of a flaw in the US electoral system that has representatives in the house being elected too soon after their last election. Two years is too short a time. Even the 4 year term of the president, given the longevity of the campaign (it seems to stretch all the way to the midterm elections now) may be too short.

[suv_guy_19]

But this is as close to a change as we've been since I can remember. Maybe it's time for a 3rd party that's closer to the middle.

 

 

Just for interest sake, what do you see as the middle?

 

 

[Cocheese]

Just for interest sake, what do you see as the middle?

 

Ron Paul

[fordmantpw]

I hope that what happens is the candidates who run under specific promises to reduce spending get elected and that sends a clear signal to the others that they need to get in line or they'll be voted out next time.

 

It will be curious to see how much support the Republican Tea Party backed candidates get from the RNC.

 

But this is as close to a change as we've been since I can remember. Maybe it's time for a 3rd party that's closer to the middle.

 

Agreed. The problem is that too many people vote along party lines and don't think.

 

For instance, my grandmother (bless her soul) was a devout Catholic, but for some reason, she always voted Democrat. Typically, Democrats are pro-abortion, and Republicans are anti-abortion, which is why many Catholics vote Republican. Every election, she would vote all-Democrat...never a split-ticket. It didn't matter what we tried to tell her about the beliefs or policies of individual Democrats, she voted all Democrat, all the time.

 

Now, I'm not saying you should base your voting on one policy of the candidate, but just making a point how some folks vote down the party lines, regardless of their beliefs, and it has been going on for a LONG time! One good thing about the up-and-coming generations, whether they are lazy or self-focused or not, they don't care about "the way it's always been done". They are more willing to give their opinion and express themselves. That may be just what it takes to get some of the right people in office...

Edited September 28, 2011 by fordmantpw

[akirby]

Agreed. The problem is that too many people vote along party lines and don't think.

 

For instance, my grandmother (bless her soul) was a devout Catholic, but for some reason, she always voted Democrat. Typically, Democrats are pro-abortion, and Republicans are anti-abortion, which is why many Catholics vote Republican. Every election, she would vote all-Democrat...never a split-ticket. It didn't matter what we tried to tell her about the beliefs or policies of individual Democrats, she voted all Democrat, all the time.

 

Now, I'm not saying you should base your voting on one policy of the candidate, but just making a point how some folks vote down the party lines, regardless of their beliefs, and it has been going on for a LONG time! One good thing about the up-and-coming generations, whether they are lazy or self-focused or not, they don't care about "the way it's always been done". They are more willing to give their opinion and express themselves. That may be just what it takes to get some of the right people in office...

 

Like I said - it's turned into a college football game where the only goal is to beat the other team. The individual candidates don't matter. This is why I despise the current 2 party monopoly. You can't win your party's primary unless you toe the party line. No room for moderates on either side. And if you don't run with party backing you can't win the general election.

 

And frankly - I'm sick and tired of religious and moral issues being at the forefront of political campaigns. We should be able to separate individual religious or moral views from running the government. We let moral issues determine who we back moreso than financial issues and that leads to a bigger divide between the 2 parties. Take that out of the equation and let's focus on how to run the country.

 

What is my "middle" position?

 

Cut government spending. Significantly. Once the deficit and debt is back under control cut taxes to match reduced spending levels. Get rid of unnecessary programs and foreign aid. And that includes military cuts provided we aren't compromising our defense capability.

 

Get religion and morals out of the political picture.

 

Keep government handouts for the truly needy - the ones who can't help themselves - but cut the rest. Replace welfare with a work system. Anyone who is unable to find work elsewhere can work for the government. You show up and you get paid the same thing you would have made under welfare - but you must do whatever work is needed. Pick up trash. Paint. Sort recycling. Whatever. And if there is no work for you to you can take online classes. Free child care is provided so there is no excuse. This job would pay less than a regular minimum wage job but the same or more than current welfare.

 

Adjust the tax rates so everyone pays a little - say 1% for the lowest 20%. And stop at 35%. Do away with all loopholes and deductions. Everybody pays something. No more "trickle down" policies that indiscriminately give businesses tax breaks. The only tax breaks for businesses should be local ones such as lowering property taxes in exchange for providing x number of local jobs so that there is a net benefit to the community. But at the same time you don't penalize businesses with higher taxes or other burdens. The rich will still pay the most but nobody gets a totally free ride. Or put in a flat tax of some kind. No more free rides unless you are actually disabled and unable to work. Anybody that watches Judge Judy can see how many people are abusing the system both on welfare and disability.

 

Either institute term limits or change the compensation so that being a politician is no longer an extremely lucrative career position. This causes them to put re-election above all else because it's their livelihood.

 

That's my "middle" position. It may not be totally in the middle but it's certainly not all the way left or right.

[suv_guy_19]

Like I said - it's turned into a college football game where the only goal is to beat the other team.

 

Agreed.

 

The individual candidates don't matter. This is why I despise the current 2 party monopoly. You can't win your party's primary unless you toe the party line. No room for moderates on either side. And if you don't run with party backing you can't win the general election.

 

I think there is an even more serious problem in the US right now, and it has to do with election finance laws. The donation limits are too high, and the sources too varied. They should have to survive on smaller donations from individuals, and not corporations or unions.

 

And frankly - I'm sick and tired of religious and moral issues being at the forefront of political campaigns. We should be able to separate individual religious or moral views from running the government. We let moral issues determine who we back moreso than financial issues and that leads to a bigger divide between the 2 parties. Take that out of the equation and let's focus on how to run the country.

 

Definitely. Managing a country is far more important than pocket issues of interests, no matter what they might be.

 

Cut government spending. Significantly.

 

I agree, although I'm not sure that the current time is the right time, given the global problems. 2013 is probably the right year to begin cutting deeply.

 

Once the deficit and debt is back under control cut taxes to match reduced spending levels.

 

I'm not sure I agree with too many tax cuts at this time. There is only so far that you can cut and lower taxes before you start to compromise essential services.

 

Get rid of unnecessary programs and foreign aid. And that includes military cuts provided we aren't compromising our defense capability.

 

There is an argument that getting rid of foreign aid makes the world less safe, even more so than defence cuts. It's one that is being put forward by British Prime Minister David Cameron. He may be onto something.

 

Keep government handouts for the truly needy - the ones who can't help themselves - but cut the rest. Replace welfare with a work system. Anyone who is unable to find work elsewhere can work for the government. You show up and you get paid the same thing you would have made under welfare - but you must do whatever work is needed. Pick up trash. Paint. Sort recycling. Whatever. And if there is no work for you to you can take online classes. Free child care is provided so there is no excuse. This job would pay less than a regular minimum wage job but the same or more than current welfare.

 

If this would work, I completely agree.

 

Adjust the tax rates so everyone pays a little - say 1% for the lowest 20%. And stop at 35%. Do away with all loopholes and deductions. Everybody pays something. No more "trickle down" policies that indiscriminately give businesses tax breaks. The only tax breaks for businesses should be local ones such as lowering property taxes in exchange for providing x number of local jobs so that there is a net benefit to the community. But at the same time you don't penalize businesses with higher taxes or other burdens. The rich will still pay the most but nobody gets a totally free ride. Or put in a flat tax of some kind. No more free rides unless you are actually disabled and unable to work. Anybody that watches Judge Judy can see how many people are abusing the system both on welfare and disability.

 

I don't know if I agree with the poorest paying taxes. It's more a symbolic feel good thing for those that don't agree with social programs. At the other end, I don't really agree that businesses should pay current US tax rates. They are, after all, some of the highest in the world.

 

Either institute term limits or change the compensation so that being a politician is no longer an extremely lucrative career position. This causes them to put re-election above all else because it's their livelihood.

 

 

On the one side, I see your point, and on the other side I don't agree. Sure, politicians shouldn't necessarily become rich off of politics, but on the other hand, you need good compensation to get good people. On the other side, while term limits keep people we don't like from staying too long, they make it so that the best can't stay.

 

 

[retro-man]

I agree with much of what you said in that last post akirby - particularly the approach to welfare, and getting religion out of politics.

Edited September 28, 2011 by retro-man

[akirby]

I agree with much of what you said in that last post akirby - particularly the approach to welfare, and getting religion out of politics.

 

Wait - I'm getting agreement from both of you? I must have screwed up somewhere................

 

Seriously - when you take the party-ism out of the discussion and start talking real issues I think you'll find that most of us are closer in our beliefs than we may think. But throw in party labels and the discussions go to hell in a handbasket quickly.

[fordmantpw]

Like I said - it's turned into a college football game where the only goal is to beat the other team. The individual candidates don't matter. This is why I despise the current 2 party monopoly. You can't win your party's primary unless you toe the party line. No room for moderates on either side. And if you don't run with party backing you can't win the general election.

 

 

 

 

...a bunch of good stuff cut out for brevity...

 

 

 

 

That's my "middle" position. It may not be totally in the middle but it's certainly not all the way left or right.

 

I agree 100% with what you said...100%!

 

 

Wait - I'm getting agreement from both of you? I must have screwed up somewhere................

 

Seriously - when you take the party-ism out of the discussion and start talking real issues I think you'll find that most of us are closer in our beliefs than we may think. But throw in party labels and the discussions go to hell in a handbasket quickly.

 

 

Exactly! Throw a little common sense in there, and work for what is best in this country, and not what is best for me or my party, and you find support across the board. Like you said though, you can't get support because you aren't toeing the party line.

 

 

akirby, you running for office? I'll vote for you!

[akirby]

I think there is an even more serious problem in the US right now, and it has to do with election finance laws. The donation limits are too high, and the sources too varied. They should have to survive on smaller donations from individuals, and not corporations or unions.

 

Thanks for reminding me. I would do away with campaign financing totally - or severely limit it to hiring a small staff and some travel expenses. My solution is to get the media (local and national tv and newspapers) to donate equal time for each candidate. Let them publish their position on the issues and whatever campaign promises they want to make. Get rid of all the personal attack ads. Save those for live debates. Just tell us what you want to do and how and let the journalists report on any improprieties that they find newsworthy. This eliminates the need for a huge war chest that must be funded by constituents and it eliminates the need to satisfy those constituents that donated big bucks to get you elected.

 

I agree, although I'm not sure that the current time is the right time, given the global problems. 2013 is probably the right year to begin cutting deeply.

 

I'm not sure I agree with too many tax cuts at this time. There is only so far that you can cut and lower taxes before you start to compromise essential services.

 

That assumes the money being spent now is being spent wisely. I think a lot of it is being wasted on unnecessary things. I've been through a lot of budget cuts in 25 years. It's simple - you either cut specific programs or departments or you do an across the board cut. Let each department figure out where to cut back and how. I guarantee everyone could cut 10% without affecting any essential services or having any negative impact. I've seen it done too many times. Once again the hard part is getting the politicians to agree to the cuts because they don't want the cuts to affect their constituents. Why? Because they're too worried about being re-elected and not worried enough about doing the right thing.

 

And I said that we shouldn't cut taxes until we have the deficit and spending under control. That might take 10 years but we need to start now.

 

 

There is an argument that getting rid of foreign aid makes the world less safe, even more so than defence cuts. It's one that is being put forward by British Prime Minister David Cameron. He may be onto something.

 

I buy that argument in some cases and up to a certain point. And if we had a budget surplus I would probably support it in most cases. But when you have no money and you're going deeper into debt every day you have to make some tough choices and prioritize your spending. At this point I don't think we can afford to do as much of this as we have in the past. And there may be some consequences but you have to draw a line somewhere.

 

I don't know if I agree with the poorest paying taxes. It's more a symbolic feel good thing for those that don't agree with social programs.

 

Ok - so no income tax on the first $20K and a low tax on the next $20K, up to a max of 35%. As long as we wipe out the ridiculous earned income credits.

[suv_guy_19]

Thanks for reminding me. I would do away with campaign financing totally - or severely limit it to hiring a small staff and some travel expenses.

 

I would have no arguments with that. I think is one of the biggest problems that is mostly unique to the US. Eliminating the current situation would probably go a long way to reducing corruption.

 

That assumes the money being spent now is being spent wisely.

 

I'm just saying that because there is so much to cut, until revenues return to normal (the recession has really killed them), it might be difficult to cut that far, and the cutting may actually hamper economic growth.

 

And I said that we shouldn't cut taxes until we have the deficit and spending under control. That might take 10 years but we need to start now.

 

Ah, now I understand better.

 

I buy that argument in some cases and up to a certain point. And if we had a budget surplus I would probably support it in most cases. But when you have no money and you're going deeper into debt every day you have to make some tough choices and prioritize your spending. At this point I don't think we can afford to do as much of this as we have in the past. And there may be some consequences but you have to draw a line somewhere.

 

 

This may surprise you, but I agree. I just wouldn't cut all aid programs, as it would make the US an even bigger target internationally.

 

Ok - so no income tax on the first $20K and a low tax on the next $20K, up to a max of 35%. As long as we wipe out the ridiculous earned income credits.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with this completely. Your brackets make more sense to me now, but I understand the idea behind what is here called the working tax credit. It allows poor people to be rewarded for getting jobs instead of sitting on their ass. Of course, making welfare harder to get, I suppose, would eliminate the need for it.

 

 

[akirby]

It's like the debt ceiling debate. I don't think you'll get much argument that the deficit needs to be brought down, but the debt ceiling had to be raised....that almost didn't happen. Sometimes, people in Congress have to be allowed to make decisions, even if they aren't popular, and populists movements too often have a negative impact on the legislative process.

 

The issue here wasn't that the debt ceiling should be raised. The problem was the debt ceiling had been raised so many times that it had become useless. What is the point of a debt ceiling if every time we hit it we just raise the limit?

 

It's like having a credit card and telling the bank to give you a $500 limit so you don't overspend. Then you go back to the bank once every 3 months and ask them to raise it so you can continue to spend.

 

The point of the debt ceiling is to force you to cut back at a certain point rather than continue to spend indiscriminately. If you continually raise it without some type of action plan to reduce spending in the future then what's the point?

 

We see this in IT all the time. A project needs an exception because they don't have time to do it the right way and there is a pressing business need. We approve the exception but we demand that they submit a plan so that they don't need the exception the next time. Otherwise they'll just keep coming back for a new exception every time and that allows them to effectively bypass the standards.

 

What the Tea Partiers wanted was some assurance that along with raising the debt ceiling something would be done in the meantime so that we wouldn't be back in the same position a year from now with the same arguments. Which seems totally reasonable to me.

 

I think we need a balanced budget law with provisions for temporary over-spending with Congressional approval for a limited time. Anything beyond that requires a budget increase and additional revenue to offset it.

 

You know - just like EVERY BUSINESS IN AMERICA has operated since the beginning of time. I think we need a separate CFO to handle money affairs and leave the other stuff to the POTUS and Congress.

[suv_guy_19]

 

What the Tea Partiers wanted was some assurance that along with raising the debt ceiling something would be done in the meantime so that we wouldn't be back in the same position a year from now with the same arguments. Which seems totally reasonable to me.

 

 

That was an extremely risky business though. There are better times to have that debate, though I understand the view that nothing may have been done without the threat to withhold funds.

[akirby]

but I understand the idea behind what is here called the working tax credit. It allows poor people to be rewarded for getting jobs instead of sitting on their ass. Of course, making welfare harder to get, I suppose, would eliminate the need for it.

 

Apparently it was introduced to bring more people and families above the poverty line and supposedly the money paid to these folks help stimulate the local economy. In other words, it's welfare for people who don't qualify for straight-up welfare assistance.

 

So here is my question - if giving a tax break to these families helps stimulate the local economy, then why wouldn't across the board tax cuts have the same impact to the local economy?

 

I would be more in favor of it if it replaced welfare altogether. I'd rather give money to someone who works than someone who doesn't (by choice in most cases).

[akirby]

That was an extremely risky business though. There are better times to have that debate, though I understand the view that nothing may have been done without the threat to withhold funds.

 

I agree - the debate should have been had way before the deadline. But that's what you do when you want to force someone into making the decision you want them to make. You wait until it's too close to the deadline for them to say no.

 

Like I said - we go through this every week in IT.

 

"But I need this exception because my project is due in 2 months and I don't have time to do anything else!"

"But you knew this was an issue a year ago and yet you waited until now to address it."

"Yeah but this has millions of dollars of revenue tied to it."

 

It's all a game and the players know how to play the system.

[suv_guy_19]

You'll find no argument from me to either of those posts.