For a change, use this poll and comment space to discuss whether those who can most afford it should be treated the same as the rest of us or should they be treated differently. In other words, ignore the issue of raising taxes vs. cutting spending. That has been discussed to death. This is purely about who pays for what taxes there are. Tied up with this is keeping or eliminating tax loopholes and other things that allow the wealthy to pay less taxes. Discuss!
President Obama will propose that people earning more than $1 million a year pay at least the same tax rate as middle-class earners to help reduce the soaring budget deficit, according to administration officials.
Obama will call the plan the “Buffett rule” after billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett, a supporter of his who recently called the tax system unfair, noting that it lets him pay a lower rate than his secretary does.
The plan would replace the complicated alternative minimum tax, which was enacted decades ago to ensure that the wealthy paid at least some income taxes, according to the officials, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
#58, bobbo,
I was just reading that article the other day. In general YES!!! those receiving assistance from the government should indeed be working to pay for it, provided they are capable of working. This in itself would solve our deficit problem! Imagine if every able-bodied bum on welfare had to work on one of Obama’s pet ‘infrastructure project’. We wouldn’t have to pay other people to do much of the work, the person might learn a useful skill, and all the people defrauding the system would stop participating. And hopefully citizens would be doing more of this work, instead of giving it to illegals to funnel out of the country.
In that particular case however, I am not sure you would want these homeless people to do even half of the work that needs to be done. Some things will obviously require skilled professionals, but there has got to be some middle ground.
I think all government assistance not for mentally or physically disabled should be treated as a loan or payment for work received. If this were done and Social Security were converted to a savings and insurance program instead of a “pay-it-forward and pray there is someone there to cover your as some day” program, we would not be in such a crisis and would not even be discussing soaking the rich to solve every problem government creates.
#66–cranky==it all adds up and there is an element of “fairness.” You might disagree, so did King Louis 14th. The mob will only be told to get a job for so long.
I posted before that experts have counterfactualized that if socialized healthcare and limited oversea’s wars had been instituted 20 years ago ((and everything else stayed the same?—HAW, haw!!)) that we would have no national debt. Maybe so. Maybe no.
Too many of the rich have done nothing but steal their money from everyone else. Wallstreet is a Rico Operation. Skimming plain and simple. when you got a crap deal at the start, you need a crap deal to straighten things out.
#67–do-ill==moronically wrong in everything you post as usual.
Silly Hoomans.
Government is 43% of the GNP, too fucking big! And WTF are religions tax free? We are now telling these dumb asses, uh, er, I mean our loyal followers to pay 20% of their income to the church. Hell of a racket, huh?
♬ What a friend we have in Cheeses! ♪
Why did they only use 3 nails to nail Jesus to the cross? They ran out of nails.
What does INRI mean above his head on the cross? I’m nailed right in.
I’ll be here all week.
#68–cranky==well, thanks for the attempt. There wouldn’t be a jobs crises if the jobs that were available could be performed by those looking for work. STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT is our new reality. THERE ARE NO JOBS. I suppose we could get/force some percentage of the unemployed/the lame/the halt to go out and pick fruit===but that too is becoming mechanized which is a large part of our STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT.
What should a society do when 100% of the work needed to be done can be done by 70% of the people.
AMUSING?????—I recall Mechanix Illustrated and other mags outlining our society of the future with energy too cheap to meter and free time aplenty. Who knew the “free time” made available would be called unemployment??? HA, HA. Yea, that free time thing wasn’t thought thru.
You post a do-ill moronically spin oriented BS line including Soc Sec as part of the problems we are facing now.
Check you assumptions. Not hard to do.
Yea, verily.
The Jesus Nail Joke is more like he went to Jerusalem and needed a room for the night. He went to the nearest inn and threw 3 nails on the counter (a valuable commodity at the time) and said “Can you put me up for the night?”
Hard to believe how cruel we all were “back then” and how so many today are fighting to reestablish the same conditions.
Yea verily only in brotherly love do we all succeed: Leave other people Alone!
bobbo,
I am not quite sure what your point is. Do you have a counter-point to anything I said, or are you just venting?
Yes, humans have been being replaced by machines since the industrial revolution. You think this is all bad? Do yous still wish we had slaves picking the cotton instead of machines?
Wealth comes from people creating goods or services. People will always come up with new good or services that you people don’t really ‘need’ per-se, and this ads to wealth and higher standards of living just as much as products you think you do need.
Our current unemployment situation happened quickly and it had nothing to do with robots. Well before he was elected, Obama was predicting this was going to be the worst recession since the great depression while unemployment was still moderate, effectively scaring companies into layout off people because every other company was going to be doing it.
There will always be plenty of work to do as long as an economy is good and confidence is high. For example, my company would like to hire hundreds more people if they could afford it. Instead I and lots of other people are doing the jobs of more than one person. Economies are by nature cyclical because positive and negative perceptions of the economy become self-fulfilling prophesies. In this case, the government made our low cycle much worse promoting easier money and loans for people with no business getting a loan, but that is a topic for another debate.
In this economy, the uncertainty created by this administration is way more of a problem than any drastic shift in the skill set our economy needs do to technological changes. ‘Structural Unemployment’ in this case is simply a result of companies laying off people with particular skills, and not being confident enough in the economy to start hiring people back to those particular jobs.
Bobbo,
Why can’t Jesus eat M&M’s? Falls through the holes in his hands.
Cruel is the church covering up abuse. Cruel is taking money from people that need it more than the church does. “Back then” certainly seemed a lot easier than now. Old neighborhoods look like a third world country. Once prosperous shopping malls are filled with refugees and junk stores. I walked three miles the other day, but not on purpose. I was trying to find someone in Home Depot that spoke english. I just makes me want to climb the Texas tower.
A lot of interesting points of view here, but I think Sister Mary and Bobo nailed it.
Well Cranky. Quite the challenge. Let me parse myself to your point of what is my point?
In general your issue is: “In general YES!!! those receiving assistance from the government should indeed be working to pay for it, provided they are capable of working.” /// and that is “part of it” but my response is also that there are not enough jobs for those who want them. I tried to use caps to draw attention to counter point your own: STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT. With SU–it doens’t matter how much people want to work or what their qualification are or what the government does. Its a new reality we have to deal with. We aren’t and we find lots of scapegoats to cover that basic fact up===like blaming Soc Sec that can and should be easily fixed to remain solvent into the future. Yes–raising the retirement age is part of it. But NOT destroying it as in vouchering it or making it invested in the Stockmarket and other Puke rip off schemes.
Post #71==bobbo, What is Social Justice in a Society with Structural Unemployment said, on September 18th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
#68–cranky==well, thanks for the attempt. /// I do respect your fact/issue oriented post. Not unadulterated dogma or personality posting. That is a good thing.
There wouldn’t be a jobs crises if the jobs that were available could be performed by those looking for work. STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT is our new reality. THERE ARE NO JOBS. I suppose we could get/force some percentage of the unemployed/the lame/the halt to go out and pick fruit===but that too is becoming mechanized which is a large part of our STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT. xxxxx Yep–all goes to the point that you can’t provide work simply to make work if there are no jobs. Or the jobs available require special skills or youth as in construction.
What should a society do when 100% of the work needed to be done can be done by 70% of the people.
You post a do-ill moronically spin oriented BS line including Soc Sec as part of the problems we are facing now. /// why did you post that? Why not post that HPV Vaccine causes retardation? Both statements are on equal footing.
Check you assumptions. Not hard to do.
Yea, verily.
Sister–I was going to comment when did tithing get raised to 20% but I would never question anyone with a hand grenade.
Yea–the notion of the Catholic Church having golden candlesticks and worshiping the Pope with his resplendent threads waited on hand and foot always struck me as anti-christian when calling for donations to respond to a food crises.
I’ve never liked your Sister Teresa. She may have helped the poor of Calcutta but she really should have been asking why they were poor===as in born to parents her church wouldn’t let use condoms. Simple things.
Contra==you do have to have some money/resources to do good and the poor, and sadly probably the Pope too, will always be with us. Still—I think the hypocrisy level could be brought down a notch or two.
If they really believed—they should give up their tax status and preach politics from the pulpit. They make it all too clear that their god is mamon.
disgusting—but very human. What ya gonna do?
Re: “I walked three miles the other day.{} I was trying to find someone in Home Depot that spoke english.”
Hahahaha. I walked 3 miles in home Depot trying to find someone who worked there.
It’s all social engineering. The right has had it’s way with the west for the last 30 years, especially in the US and Britain. The biggest problem I see with their position is that it hasn’t produced demonstrable results. If the “job creators” have a surplus of cash then they will invest, build, and create jobs. So where are the jobs?
Basically it’s up to them to step up and stimulate the economy right now because, well, they have everyone’s money. Certainly a large financial services sector has been created to manage their surplus of dough but that hasn’t led to jobs growth.
In a nutshell, the argument is coming down to this: You have the money, so get on with job creation and stimulate the economy already.
bobbo,
Were you just debating with your own statements in your last post? I said give a counterpoint to one of MY points if you disagree with one, not debate against your previous post.
Do you keep track of all of your insane trolling on troll.lulz.com or something?
The funny thing is that if you took a random sampling of the educated population, I think we could probably agree on a fair tax system. Most people don’t want to soak the rich just for the sake of soaking the rich, and most rich people are fine with paying their share as long as it is not arbitrary and just being raised because we are in another government-created ‘crisis’.
The problem is that no one wants to talk absolutes. Obama says deciding the exact tax rates is above his pay grade. What?? Someone needs to propose with something specific, based on rational historic evidence, other than ‘more more more’.
Those in power enjoy seeing the populace tear each other apart in rich vs. poor or left vs. right debates. The real debate is government by the people and for the people vs. government by the ruling class (ALL political parties) vs. government by the people.
We need a system that encourages working, hiring, responsibility, and a fair tax system for everyone. There are lots of ways to do this that would get great support from most people. However, government will not allow this because they want control for giving loopholes, exceptions, and waivers for people and companies of their choosing. They would not have this control with a flat tax or some kind of Fairtax-like solution.
When Obama was asked during the campaign trail why raise taxes on those making over $250k beyond the point where the government gets more money, he said because it is fair. In other words his goal is not to get more money for the government through tax policy, it is to punish those making too much for the sake of fairness. Despite evidence that GDP remains constant despite tax rates and going beyond the peak tax rate according the the Laffer curve hurts both the economy and government, it is good political for people to whip up resentment for rich people and promote class warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
#76
Structural Unemployment would be much worse, except for the miasma of IP Law and other indirect subsidy schemes. Notice how fast they settle postal strikes these days for instance?
But this is only delaying the advent of the new Cyberpunkesque economy. And it’ll be fine, as long as enough snack food, porn and pro wrestling can be pumped out (heh heh) to keep the trogs couch bound. Those of us with a brain will be on easy street.
The fear of the new economy is mostly being generated by those who fear that it will disrupt their power. With each day, they lose another battle, because they are fighting the last war.
In # 65 bobbo said: Lots of people worked so much harder than you and have nothing to show for it. Why doesn’t that make you happy?
What kind of warped thinking is that supposed to be?
I should be happy because some other fellah got screwed worse than I did?
That is the kind of blinkered, Philistine pig ignorance I’ve come to expect from you non-creative garbage. -Monty Python
Somebody else getting screwed does not make me happy… It makes me mad.
Unlike you I guess, I measure my accomplishments on their own merits.
I don’t care that I’m brighter that a fucking retard. I care that I not as intelligent as Richard Feinmann, But at least it spurs me on to better and brighter.
There are always people sicker/worse off/dumber/with worse luck/uglier/less literate than me.
That does not make me feel better. It shouldn’t either. That’s just a race to the bottom.
Instead of “Yo mama…” jokes, they’re “My mama… jokes and once you’ve hit the “audible acne” joke level there’s no depth left to plumb.
I’ll race you to the top and even failure can teach us something and even failure can be a learning experience. (Actually it was one of my tenets in project management: “Nothing can ever be perfect. What did we do wrong in this project so we can improve the next time.“)
There’s a good quote from the movie “1776” that has been said in several other ways that sums up the overall feeling.
“Don’t forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor.”
Class warfare indeed.
*84–mpbpod==so what have you learned from not getting a job because of the folks in HR? I went around the HR dept to get my last two jobs. Nobody important and competent for the big bucks jobs go thru HR. You haven’t learned that yet?
Always instructive what two different people will draw from the same facts, words, experience. Speaking of Quotes, Abraham Lincoln said “Most people are about as happy as they choose to be.” (fact check!===doesn’t ring right)).
Cheese!!
cranky–I may have missed what you thought was relevant, but I hit what I thought was relevant and there must be overlap.
You can use your intelligence to miss the overlap, or to engage where you can.
Mind the gap.
#73
Sorry, I thought you were arguing Nixon started the move toward deregulation. I disagree with that as you probably gathered already.
Well, if you think the gov’t was less involved prior to Nixon I’d give you even less credit.
As to Nixon’s historical reputation… I think it is all over the place. He was intelligent and effective in many ways, but his defensiveness brought about his downfall.
Seen against what happened later to the GOP I think he doesn’t look too bad.
Maybe the government ought to do to the millionaire and billionaires, what it does with the rest of us. Figure out how much taxes they skated out of, and charge them retroactively, for all those years they avoided paying what they should have. I’ve noted that there’s only a statute of limitation, for what the government owes any taxpayer, if they overcharged (over-withheld) funds. But no such time limit for owing the government back taxes. Unless, apparently, you’ve got a congressman’s ear. And can get a tax loophole created just for you. Buying off congressmen and senators can be cheaper than paying your taxes, if you owe enough.
Animby, Buffet gives away tons of his money:
“Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world’s largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett’s (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates).”
You’re an idiot.
More importantly, I feel if I was in Buffet’s situation I would want EVERYONE to pay their fair share and not feel like I was the only one making any contribution to society.
You conservatives keep saying that it will kill job creation, but where are the fucking jobs right now? Taxes on the rich haven’t increased one bit and it hasn’t made finding a job any easier. If they want to show that lower taxes work, how about comparing the unemployment rates during the Clinton and Bush eras.
Clinton had the highest taxes and yet he had the lowest unemployment rates. On the other hand, Obama has consistently (and to his own detriment) allowed Republicans to have their way. Allowed them to push us further into a recession. I don’t know what all you morons are complaining about. What has Obama done that hasn’t been under the strict approval of the Republican congress???
Keep cutting taxes on the wealthy and watch as our infrastructure goes to shit and crime rates increase rapidly. At least the millionaires and billionaires will be safe in their gated communities with their private police forces and jails.
You sheep are just falling into the trap. Brainwashed. It’s fucking pathetic. I really can’t understand how STUPID people can be. You have to look at the distribution of wealth.
If we tax people who are making 50,000 @ 50% a year… even if that is 80% of the population, we still wouldn’t scratch the surface of the deficit because so much wealth has been funneled into a small percentage of people. A flat tax doesn’t solve this because it doesn’t factor in existing wealth. The rich have reserves that the poor doesn’t. They can afford to save when others struggle living paycheck to paycheck.
If you look at the big picture you see why the rates have to gradually increase at higher tax brackets. There is an expectation that you have savings. A flat tax only makes things fair if the wealthy are also spending the same percentage of their wealth as the poor as well. Unfortunately that’s not the case. People making $50000 a year might have 0 savings at the end of the year. If the billionaires also spent 100% of their income in that year a flat tax would make sense.
This is a simple concept. It was converted me to believe in higher tax rates.
Skeptic,
What makes you think you won’t? Do you plan to stop heating your house this Winter and driving your car and eating processed food? We do work in all of these industries and more. My rates go up, my customer charges more to you.
So go ahead and raise my taxes — I’ll just take it out of your pocket and pass it on to Uncle Sam.
Nilum,
You’re the idiot. He gave it away to charity organizations. Is he going to refuse the GENEROUS tax break on charitable contributions?
If he was serious, he would have donated it to the government.
And what is your definition of “fair share?”
If you guys want to stop the wealth transfer to the mega-rich, stop the government from borrowing money from the Fed.
That is how these guys get all of our money, not through tax breaks.
Animby says:
nilim shot that asinine idea right between the eyes:
The entire idea of a “flat tax” is ridiculous. If the family of four living on $25k a year, driving a ten-year old car, gets hit with a 10% tax, they have to choose between eating, gasoline, and heat in the winter. Animby, you choose for them…do the kids go hungry, or do they live in a freezing house this winter, or does mom quit her $7/hr job?
….so people like you get a tax break.
Flat tax makes a nice-sounding political argument to some, but everyone who’s ever implemented tax policy in the history of the USA knows full well it’s a very bad idea.
The conservative media has been beating the “job creator” idea for over a year know, and it’s 100% bullshit. They have more money than ever before, so where’s the jobs?
This actually isn’t much of a tax. One million is not very wealthy, and I think that’s a big part of the problem – how we define “rich”. Rich, in 2011 terms, probably should be someone who receives or has assets of, at least tens of millions of dollars. One million is upper middle class at this point. I hope this tax strategy does not end up soaking the middle and upper middle class as tax strategies so frequently do.
I say, by all means, go after multi-multi millionaires (billionaires) with confiscatory tax rates. Most of them have made their money through one illicit mean or another, and at cost to the general society. They take the profits, we pay for their losses. Or we pay to clean up the environment or whatever other mess they leave in their wake. The rich will always have tons of money, we don’t have to “worry” about them. And bring back tariffs while we’re at it!
As for taxes being a disincentive for the rich to spend or “create jobs”….they’ve had tax breaks for DECADES now and don’t spend it here. They either keep it, invest it, or build stuff overseas, but they sure as hell aren’t creating American jobs with it, and haven’t been for a long time. That’s a phony argument.
And while we’re discussing phony arguments….please…NO national SALES tax – really bad idea that hits the poor and middle class the hardest as it takes the biggest bite of their non-disposable income. No FLAT tax for the same reason. 5% of $50,000 is $2500, which might be the very difference in how a family lives or whether they can afford basic things. 5% of $50,000,000 still leaves PLENTY of money to do whatever with, and they’re not going to be eating cat food any time soon.
The rich get a lot out of this country through their connections with their rich buddies and powerful politicians. Taxes should be the price of doing business, and it’s our cut of the vig. Stop worrying about these leeches, they’re not going to starve, and they’re not going to help us voluntarily. Moreover, great wealth is an inherent destroyer of democracy as it enables them to buy the Republic and to have a completely different set of laws and way of life than the rest of us. It creates an aristocracy.
I say…SOAK THE RICH!!!!!!!
If #63 msbpodcast didn’t like my A+B=C math, then this will really set him off.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
# 91 nilum said, “You’re an idiot.” I said absolutely nothing about Buffett’s philanthropic activities. I only said if he thinks he should pay more, then he should pay more. As soon as possible. Methinks you are the idiot. I’m surprised you can type since you obviously can’t read.
Olo #95 – I admit to hyperbole. If your grandmother is eating cat food of necessity, then I suspect she should not have to pay any tax. But that situation has nothing to do with a flat tax. That’s a VAT (value added tax). Your family of four (described above) is near poverty level. Any flat tax is going to take into account such limitations.
I know it hurts, but try to be logical.
Animby, fair enough, but it can be argued that the group paying no fed income taxes today is that same group as those eating cat food. The reason they pay no taxes is the standard deductions and child-tax credits, which have been in place for decades.
You could take half of everything that group owns, 50% of their net worth, and it adds up to less than the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 1% for the nest several years.
Google’s Steve Schmidt said something relevant recently.