Quantcast
Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should GOP in Congress accept a tax increase on super rich?

Doug Yeomans
DougYeomans's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 13 2009
Member

No, no and no. First of all, collecting more tax on the super rich, even if it were possible, won't put a dent in the national debt. Second of all, if anyone believes that the collected taxes will be used to pay down the debt, they're delusional. The super rich, the rich and the wealthy already pay more taxes every year than you or I will in our lifetime. It's another "feel-good" measure to make people feel less victimized.

How about we just expect our government to live within its means? Giving them a raise just means they'll spend more. It doesn't mean that we'll be any better off or that the national debt will become smaller. How about this, instead of the wealthy paying more in order to make us feel better, how about cutting our taxes to make us feel less broke? How about fixing the tax system in the first place?

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

PROPOSED TAX INCREASE ON THE UPPER 2% = 10 DAYS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

JAMES CARVELLE COINED THE PHRASE "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!"

THESE DAYS SHOULD BE,

"IT'S THE SPENDING MORONS!"

Michael Caton
Michael Caton's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 20 2010

No they should not. The tax will not be paid by them because pretty much all them have business that make them wealthy and they will just past the increase down onto consumer by raising there prices of there products and services which low and behold all of us will be paying for them. It will cause them to layoff some of there employee's to compensate for the higher taxes. And of course it will not even put a dent in the national debt.
It will only generate about 80 billion a year and chance are it won't even go towards it.
They need to balance there budget and cut wasteful spending which I don't see happening anytime soon.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

And please, no well it worked for Bill Clinton post,

Let's set the record straight on that

1) The 1992 recession was over before Bill Clinton took office.

2) A little thing called Windows 95 and Microsoft office were realeased in 1994 which in reality is what caused 1/2 of the economic growth in the 90's

3) The proliferation of the Internet as a result of (2) added the stimulus for job growth in that decade.

4) Manufacturing jobs decreased during that decade at a similar pace to the declines after 2000

Bottom line, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and several other digital age pioneers had far more to do with the economic prosperity in the 90's than did tax policy. And let's not foget, the last two months of the Clinton administartion wes mirored by a recession as well.

James Renfrew
Jim Renfrew's picture
Online
Joined: Jul 27 2008

So if the ultra-rich are taxed more, they'll just pass that additional expense on to the poor by charging higher prices for the products and services they sell?. I think I get it now. Don't tax the ultra-rich at all, but directly tax the poor and middle class instead because they're going to have to pay it anyway. Now I understand the Romney-Ryan plan.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

That is a classic example of BULL SHIT, and CLASS ENVY

John Roach
John Roach's picture
Offline
Joined: May 29 2008
Member

If you truly want to get the deficit down, then every-one's taxes have to go up, no exceptions. And the upcoming spending cuts have to be allowed to take place.

The taxing only the "rich" will not do it and most thinking people know it. And the token spending cuts proposed are just that, tokens.

Sure it will hurt big time, but if you don't start now, it's going to hurt everyone a lot more later, like in Europe.

Thomas Schneider
2rightwings's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 12 2009

The fiscal cliff has been passed a long time ago. Unfunded SS and Medicare liabilities are nearing $121,000,000,000,000 according to the debt clock, added to $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, there is no possible way this can ever be paid. If it can't be paid, it wont be paid. Our country is like Wile E Coyote running in the air. The question is, how much longer can we continue to defy gravity?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

david spaulding
chunky's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 12 2011

73% in favor of raising taxes on someone else.....nice....i think you have been brainwashed..do you really think raising taxes will bring down the national debt? this debt will NEVER EVER be paid off..
a possible way to help it stop growing is for all governments,local,state and federal to go bankrupt....
this is a way to stop honoring all contracts...bethlehem steel did it,major airlines have done it....
it's fairly simple,go bankrupt,go to court,judge will ask"what will it take for your government to be succesful again"
then the cuts get made....wages get slashed,vacation is over with,sick days are gone,must pay for health insurance,and a big one,pensions are gone..no more pensions,no more tax free pension...i know government employees worked thier lives for these benefits,so did i,and with a swipe of a pen,a judge took it all away...another tool is "cross-utitlization"(sp)this tool is for when there really isn't any place for you any more or they just want you gone.
bottom line is everybody gets fired and they bring in sub-contractors to do your job..

Dave Olsen
daveo's picture
Offline
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Member

How about we just outsource the budget process. Bob from Account Temps could probably do a better job of balancing the budget.

Jeff Allen
dnjallen's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2009
Member

Dave, you are right but unfortunately we are stuck with Merlman for the foreseeable future.

John Roach
John Roach's picture
Offline
Joined: May 29 2008
Member

Howard,
You might be right. But I think a lot of them think that if the rich are taxed more, they'll get some of it. Greed, envy?

John Roach
John Roach's picture
Offline
Joined: May 29 2008
Member

Howard,
I can agree to that.

James Renfrew
Jim Renfrew's picture
Online
Joined: Jul 27 2008

Not sure what you mean by "in capitalism, resources are infinite". I can think of quite a few things that are definitely not infinite - oil, clean water, lumber, good soil, etc. Maybe you are trying yo make a different point?

James Renfrew
Jim Renfrew's picture
Online
Joined: Jul 27 2008

Please explain why you think what I wrote represents "class envy".

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

Ok James, you said rhetorically

"So if the ultra-rich are taxed more," they'll just pass that additional expense on to the poor"

And you said

"Don't tax the ultra-rich at all, but directly tax the poor and middle class instead"

Now, how is that not class envy?, Unless I seriously misread your premise.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

VERY WELL STATED

James Renfrew
Jim Renfrew's picture
Online
Joined: Jul 27 2008

I see that I replied to the wrong comment. I meant to respond to Michael Caton, not you.. So my apology for that.

But I don't get how what I said translates to "Class Envy". "Class Envy" would imply, I think, that my motivation in commenting is based not on fairness, common sense, justice, or social utility but upon envy, that I simply want what someone else has. How do you know what my motivation is? Are you really certain that I want what someone else has, and that this dominates all of my thinking about society, the economy and government? You don't really know a thing about me.

You could debate what I said on the basis of fairness, for example making the point that it is indeed fair for the richest to pay a lower tax rate than the poorest.. I would argue that it is not fair.

You could debate what I said on the basis of common sense, for example making the point if the richest pay less taxes they will have more money to invest in creating jobs. I would argue that there is not much evidence that such a view works, and makes no sense to me.

You could debate what I said on the basis of justice, for example that it is the most just for the richest to keep the fruit of their labors. I would argue that making money by sending jobs overseas in a way that causes people to lose their jobs through no fault of their own might be considered unjust.

You could debate what I said on the basis of social utility, for example that our society functions best when the richest have no restraints on making a profit. I would argue that the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer creates serious instability in our society.

We could debate these points back and forth, as many do here, but I just don't understand how you can accuse me of demonstrating "Class Envy".

I

mike nixon
mnixon's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 8 2011

Class Envy 1850 "It was the best of times, It was the worst of times"
Class Envy 2012 "You have it, I want it, You shouldnt have so much, I don't want to work for it, so give some of yours." It is the worst of times.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

Oh so much to address,

1 You said "You could debate what I said on the basis of fairness, for example making the point that it is indeed fair for the richest to pay a lower tax rate than the poorest.. I would argue that it is not fair."

First of all, earned income of the rich is taxed at a higher rate 35% I think. Capitol gains on the other hand is taxed at 15% for the rich, and for the middle class person that cashes in an investment , sells a house, cashes in thier 401k etc. The talking point that the rich pay a lower rate is just BS except when it comes to deductions. As far as those deductions go, getting rid of them was exactly what Romney and current congressional republicans were and are proposing, If you understand our tax system, it is not at all about raising revenue, it is about political posturing i.e. give tax breaks to influence behavior. Much better would be a flat tax and simply exempt the first $30k earned for everyone regardless of income then NO MORE DEDUCTIONS.

2. You said, "You could debate what I said on the basis of common sense, for example making the point if the richest pay less taxes they will have more money to invest in creating jobs. I would argue that there is not much evidence that such a view works, and makes no sense to me"

You are 100% wrong, in 1920, the income tax was cut in half, there was so much growth and economic expansion that we had the roraring 20's

In the 60's, John F Kennedy cut taxes spurred economic and job growth although that was slowed a few years later when spending for the Great Society slowed that down by decades end, and the end of the Vietnam war government military spending was drastically reduced and the economy again slowed.

Now Reagan, although many want to revise history, reduced tax rates in the 80's led to an economic flury post recession that is 3-4 times the groth we have post recession today, and the eunemployment rate dropped substantially.

Ok GW BUSH, what people do not remember because of the housing crisis that caused the collapse in 2008, when Bush took office we were in the midst of a recession in 2000=-2001 that and 911, the unemployent rate during the first Bush term and 1/2 way through his secon was around 5% which in economic terms is actually full employment, The wars, the Bush tax cuts did not cause the economic collapse, 30+ years of the government trying to manipulate the housing market did.

3) You Said -"You could debate what I said on the basis of justice, for example that it is the most just for the richest to keep the fruit of their labors. I would argue that making money by sending jobs overseas in a way that causes people to lose their jobs through no fault of their own might be considered unjust."

Jobs overseas is not because of the rich, it is because labor cost and taxation. But even more so because of the free trade agreements entered into in the 90's and guess what, Bill Clinto advocated that too and actually signed the agreements.

4) You said "You could debate what I said on the basis of social utility, for example that our society functions best when the richest have no restraints on making a profit. I would argue that the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer creates serious instability in our society"

That my friend is exactly what Class Envy is, you say you are not envious but your arguement in 4 is exactly what class envy is. BTW, the argument of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is a populist arguement that has been going on almpost as long as civilization has existed.

Howard recommeded a good ebook to me and it was an awesome read, I might suggest that you read it too. "The Myth Of The Robber Barons"

Mary E DelPlato
marydel7's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 29 2008

I voted yes... the way things are with the gap between the poor and the rich closing every so narrow...there is no need for all this greed. No need for greed.

Mary E DelPlato
marydel7's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 29 2008

an even percentage across the board?

mike nixon
mnixon's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 8 2011

Mark it was a good read. Howard nice. I also recommend Atlas Shrugged. Please read or listen to it before seeing the movie. IT WAS AWESOME!
Ya know with a little research, that I found interesting, was that you can find some of the richest people in America donate more by millions of dollars than they pay in taxes. So then I saw a populist viewpoint that stated they only do it to save on tax breaks. This sent me into more research. I found that the donations far exceeds the amount of tax savings. So I have found once again that the left leaning economic talking point debunked. ENTER TAG LINE HERE: Socialism in all its forms has failed not every other time its been tried, not every third time, but every single time!

Premium Drupal Themes