Republican plan in order to raise the debt ceiling...

[pBills]

I do applaud the idea of wanting cuts... I would be interested in finding where these cuts are exactly? Do we think raising taxes is on the table? Doubt it.

 

I think the offer that some democrats are offering which is having those who make one million dollar earners per year to 45%... billion dollar earners at 49%. Still lower than what it was during the Reagan years. I think that is fair.

 

The Fairness in Taxation Act asks enacts new tax brackets for income starting at $1 million and ends with a $1 billion bracket. The new brackets would be:

 

• $1-10 million: 45%
  
• $10-20 million: 46%
  
• $20-100 million: 47%
  
• $100 million to $1 billion: 48%
  
• $1 billion and over: 49%
  

 

The bill would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those taxpayers with income over $1 million. If enacted in 2011, the Fairness in Taxation Act would raise more than $78 billion.

 

 

 

Washington Post

[ieatcrayonz]

I do applaud the idea of wanting cuts... I would be interested in finding where these cuts are exactly? Do we think raising taxes is on the table? Doubt it.

 

I think the offer that some democrats are offering which is having those who make one million dollar earners per year to 45%... billion dollar earners at 49%. Still lower than what it was during the Reagan years. I think that is fair.

 

The Fairness in Taxation Act asks enacts new tax brackets for income starting at $1 million and ends with a $1 billion bracket. The new brackets would be:

 

• $1-10 million: 45%
  
• $10-20 million: 46%
  
• $20-100 million: 47%
  
• $100 million to $1 billion: 48%
  
• $1 billion and over: 49%
  

 

The bill would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those taxpayers with income over $1 million. If enacted in 2011, the Fairness in Taxation Act would raise more than $78 billion.

 

 

 

Washington Post

Small p,

 

Do you really think the government taking more than half of someone's income makes sense and is sustainable for a society?

Edited June 8, 2011 by ieatcrayonz

[Dante]

Small p,

 

Do you really think the government taking more than half of someone's income makes sense and is sustainable for a society?

I was puzzled at the assumption that it is fair. Taking 50% of the fruits of someones work is more akin to slavery. I guess in Obamas world of collectivism this is some sort of social justice. Douchery of the left continues its march unabated.

[3rdnlng]

I do applaud the idea of wanting cuts... I would be interested in finding where these cuts are exactly? Do we think raising taxes is on the table? Doubt it.

 

I think the offer that some democrats are offering which is having those who make one million dollar earners per year to 45%... billion dollar earners at 49%. Still lower than what it was during the Reagan years. I think that is fair.

 

The Fairness in Taxation Act asks enacts new tax brackets for income starting at $1 million and ends with a $1 billion bracket. The new brackets would be:

 

• $1-10 million: 45%
  
• $10-20 million: 46%
  
• $20-100 million: 47%
  
• $100 million to $1 billion: 48%
  
• $1 billion and over: 49%
  

 

The bill would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those taxpayers with income over $1 million. If enacted in 2011, the Fairness in Taxation Act would raise more than $78 billion.

 

 

 

Washington Post

 

pBrain, do you really know enough about the Reagan years to even comment upon them? What tax deductions and loopholes were available then that aren't now?

[DC Tom]

I was puzzled at the assumption that it is fair. Taking 50% of the fruits of someones work is more akin to slavery. I guess in Obamas world of collectivism this is some sort of social justice. Douchery of the left continues its march unabated.

 

"Fairness" is an awful sort of pandering misnomer. But that's just semantics...everyone's going to have to pay more and consume less (in terms of government services) to balance the budget and make a dent in the debt, and the burden of that is going to fall on the rich, by the same practical necessity by which they now pay more than half the current taxes.

 

My one question, though, is: who the hell earns a billion dollars a year taxable income?

[Taro T]

"Fairness" is an awful sort of pandering misnomer. But that's just semantics...everyone's going to have to pay more and consume less (in terms of government services) to balance the budget and make a dent in the debt, and the burden of that is going to fall on the rich, by the same practical necessity by which they now pay more than half the current taxes.

 

My one question, though, is: who the hell earns a billion dollars a year taxable income?

Well, when hyperinflation takes hold, $1B will be like $1MM today. They're just showing good foreplanning.

[pBills]

Small p,

 

Do you really think the government taking more than half of someone's income makes sense and is sustainable for a society?

 

 

Better question... do I think lowering already historically low tax rates even lower makes sense? No.

 

"Fairness" is an awful sort of pandering misnomer. But that's just semantics...everyone's going to have to pay more and consume less (in terms of government services) to balance the budget and make a dent in the debt, and the burden of that is going to fall on the rich, by the same practical necessity by which they now pay more than half the current taxes.

 

My one question, though, is: who the hell earns a billion dollars a year taxable income?

 

 

So you are worried about the burden falling on the rich... yet not worried about the cuts and burden the middle-class is and will be facing? So it's bad to tax someone making a million dollars or more a year a bit more, but good to cut services and benefits to those making the $30,000 per year. Ok, that sounds fair.

 

Aside from this when are Republicans going to start working towards creating jobs... you know, something all of the new members of Congress campaigned on last year. If people want to hang democrats for in action they should do the same for Republicans. Stop worrying about Weiner and his dumb actions, stop worrying about Abortion, etc., etc. etc.

Edited June 8, 2011 by pBills

[DC Tom]

Better question... do I think lowering already historically low tax rates even lower makes sense? No.

 

"Historically low?" When does history begin for you, 1993?

 

 

So you are worried about the burden falling on the rich... yet not worried about the cuts and burden the middle-class is and will be facing? So it's bad to tax someone making a million dollars or more a year a bit more, but good to cut services and benefits to those making the $30,000 per year. Ok, that sounds fair.

 

You !@#$ing numbskull. I didn't say anything remotely like that. Get your head out of your ass already.

 

Aside from this when are Republicans going to start working towards creating jobs... you know, something all of the new members of Congress campaigned on last year. If people want to hang democrats for in action they should do the same for Republicans. Stop worrying about Weiner and his dumb actions, stop worrying about Abortion, etc., etc. etc.

 

I repeat: you !@#$ing numbskull. Get your head out of your ass already.

[IDBillzFan]

So you are worried about the burden falling on the rich... yet not worried about the cuts and burden the middle-class is and will be facing?

Precisely who do you think hires the middle class? That's right. Rich people. But in your world, the rich should be taxed more because, y'know, it's not like more taxes and uncertain regulations will keep the rich from hiring more middle-class people, right?

 

That progressive drum you're beating may as well be your own freaking head. "We need to tax the rich" is always followed with "Why are the rich sitting on their money and not hiring?" as though these are two were exclusive of each other.

[pBills]

"Historically low?" When does history begin for you, 1993?

 

 

 

 

You !@#$ing numbskull. I didn't say anything remotely like that. Get your head out of your ass already.

 

 

 

I repeat: you !@#$ing numbskull. Get your head out of your ass already.

 

 

Minus a few years... yes top tax rate is historically low. Link

 

Dude act your age instead of the constant BS swearing comments.

everyone's going to have to pay more and consume less (in terms of government services) to balance the budget and make a dent in the debt, and the burden of that is going to fall on the rich

 

Of course everyone will take a hit and pay more and consume less when it comes to government services... however, how many millionaires are really using or worried about government services? Do they rely on them as much as those making $30K, $40k per year? So yet, again those who are truly using the services because of need will take a hit. Those who don't we reap the benefits of an even lower tax rate.

 

Precisely who do you think hires the middle class? That's right. Rich people. But in your world, the rich should be taxed more because, y'know, it's not like more taxes and uncertain regulations will keep the rich from hiring more middle-class people, right?

 

That progressive drum you're beating may as well be your own freaking head. "We need to tax the rich" is always followed with "Why are the rich sitting on their money and not hiring?" as though these are two were exclusive of each other.

 

 

So you can guarantee that by giving even lower tax rates that the rich will hire more middle-class people? Not buying it. I am saying that I agree with the tax rate going up as high as 45%. Which is still less than what the god of the Republican Party Reagan offered for most of his Presidency.

[IDBillzFan]

So you can guarantee that by giving even lower tax rates that the rich will hire more middle-class people? Not buying it. I am saying that I agree with the tax rate going up as high as 45%. Which is still less than what the god of the Republican Party Reagan offered for most of his Presidency.

Hey, you don't think lower tax rates and less regulation will spur more hiring? Wow. I'm so surprsied.

 

I think we both know what we need: more regulation and higher taxes, precisely what we're doing right now, because as everyone can see, the only thing standing in our way of a full economic recovery is six more months of jobs reports like May.

[ieatcrayonz]

Better question... do I think lowering already historically low tax rates even lower makes sense? No.

 

Geez small p I was just asking a question. Please try to answer instead of saying I should have asked something else. Geez that is mean.

 

Anyway I think I figured out your answer. Here is the thing though:

 

We have a lot of debt which needs to be paid. Once it is paid we should try not to build it up again. Getting it paid would be great. We can't pay it without rich people and rich people already have a lot of money. We should make a deal with them. We should have temporary tax increases just until the debt is paid off. I say we do this:

 

 

$1-10 million: 85%

$10-20 million: 92%

$20-100 million: 100%

$100 million to $1 billion: 108%

$1 billion and over: 124%

 

Now before all the republicans start saying I have bad math there are two things to say:

 

1. Rich people can pay more than 100% because they are rich and already have money so don't give me any crap about paying more than 100%. They can take it from their savings.

 

2. The deal is that the taxes are temporary until the debt is paid which shouldn't be that long. I read yesterday that each household in the US has about $500 k of national debt over their heads. This really isn't all that much for rich people to pay off quickly for everyone. Once the debt is paid we could push taxes on the rich back down to something like 75%. This would be an incentive for rich people to earn more money and pay off the thing quicker. If you were making a billion a year so you were paying 1.24 billion in taxes you would try to earn 2 billion so you could pay 2.48 billion and get the rate back down to 75% so you would only have to pay 1.5 billion the next year. Rich people are usually smart like that and can read between the lines on numbers.

 

Are you on board with this plan?

 

Small p I think we agree on this stuff so please stop trying to be rude.

[DC Tom]

Minus a few years... yes top tax rate is historically low. Link

 

And if you discount everyone taller than I am, I'm the tallest person in the world.

 

Dude act your age instead of the constant BS swearing comments.

 

Don't be a !@#$ing numbskull.

 

Of course everyone will take a hit and pay more and consume less when it comes to government services... however, how many millionaires are really using or worried about government services? Do they rely on them as much as those making $30K, $40k per year? So yet, again those who are truly using the services because of need will take a hit. Those who don't we reap the benefits of an even lower tax rate.

 

What percentage of government expenditures is consumed by the poor? Simple question, should be able to come up with a concrete answer. Because the question of what percentage of government income is funded by the rich has an easy, concrete answer: roughly 70% (roughly, because I'm going by largely disinterested memory). So until you can provide a hard number, you're comparing some oogie-boogie "but think of the children!" personal approximation to a hard number, which is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. So get back to me when you can base your opinion on real information.

 

And next time, don't assume that because I point out that the burden of debt repayment will fall on the rich (logically, because THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE MONEY TO REPAY THE DEBT), that it's anything more than an observation and I'm at all pining over it, you !@#$ing numbskull.

[pBills]

Geez small p I was just asking a question. Please try to answer instead of saying I should have asked something else. Geez that is mean.

 

Anyway I think I figured out your answer. Here is the thing though:

 

We have a lot of debt which needs to be paid. Once it is paid we should try not to build it up again. Getting it paid would be great. We can't pay it without rich people and rich people already have a lot of money. We should make a deal with them. We should have temporary tax increases just until the debt is paid off. I say we do this:

 

 

$1-10 million: 85%

$10-20 million: 92%

$20-100 million: 100%

$100 million to $1 billion: 108%

$1 billion and over: 124%

 

Now before all the republicans start saying I have bad math there are two things to say:

 

1. Rich people can pay more than 100% because they are rich and already have money so don't give me any crap about paying more than 100%. They can take it from their savings.

 

2. The deal is that the taxes are temporary until the debt is paid which shouldn't be that long. I read yesterday that each household in the US has about $500 k of national debt over their heads. This really isn't all that much for rich people to pay off quickly for everyone. Once the debt is paid we could push taxes on the rich back down to something like 75%. This would be an incentive for rich people to earn more money and pay off the thing quicker. If you were making a billion a year so you were paying 1.24 billion in taxes you would try to earn 2 billion so you could pay 2.48 billion and get the rate back down to 75% so you would only have to pay 1.5 billion the next year. Rich people are usually smart like that and can read between the lines on numbers.

 

Are you on board with this plan?

 

Small p I think we agree on this stuff so please stop trying to be rude.

 

 

Gangsta way of spelling Crayons... how am I rude?

 

You are right that yes we do have a lot of the debt that needs to be paid off and yes we should curb spending across the board so that we do not build it back up again. Difference with many people is that some just want to take a hatchet and cut away at Social Programs, not thinking about who they are affecting, etc.

 

The other item as I mentioned earlier is tax rates. The tax plan created under President Bush should not be extended. One can attribute $2.74 trillion to those cuts. If the Right was really on board in making drastic changes in order to help this country they would remove those tax cuts. Even though, I wouldn't mind seeing them go up to 45% I would be happy with 39.5%.

 

I would not be for people having to cut into their savings, etc., etc. to fix this economy, just do what is right AND fair.

 

And if you discount everyone taller than I am, I'm the tallest person in the world.

 

 

 

Don't be a !@#$ing numbskull.

 

 

 

What percentage of government expenditures is consumed by the poor? Simple question, should be able to come up with a concrete answer. Because the question of what percentage of government income is funded by the rich has an easy, concrete answer: roughly 70% (roughly, because I'm going by largely disinterested memory). So until you can provide a hard number, you're comparing some oogie-boogie "but think of the children!" personal approximation to a hard number, which is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. So get back to me when you can base your opinion on real information.

 

And next time, don't assume that because I point out that the burden of debt repayment will fall on the rich (logically, because THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE MONEY TO REPAY THE DEBT), that it's anything more than an observation and I'm at all pining over it, you !@#$ing numbskull.

 

 

Of course they have the money they are the ones reaping the biggest benefits from the Bush Tax Cuts!!

 

 

On June 7, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the first of the tax cuts that would turn the budget surpluses of the 1990's into historic deficits. A new analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice explains that making these tax cuts permanent would almost double the long-term budget deficit.

 

The richest one percent of taxpayers, with an average income of about $1.4 million in 2013, would get an average tax cut of $68,079 that year if the Bush tax cuts are extended again. The poorest three fifths of taxpayers, with an average income of $29,000 that year, would receive an average tax cut of just $487.

 

The analysis also finds that the higher a filer's income, the larger the tax cut as a percentage of income. If the Bush tax cuts are extended again, in 2013 the poorest one fifth of taxpayers would receive tax cuts equal to less than one percent of their income, while the richest one percent would enjoy tax cuts equal to 4.6 percent of their income.

 

How is the bold part fair? Do not extend the Bush Tax Cuts and close loopholes.

[Peace]

 

The analysis also finds that the higher a filer's income, the larger the tax cut as a percentage of income. If the Bush tax cuts are extended again, in 2013 the poorest one fifth of taxpayers would receive tax cuts equal to less than one percent of their income, while the richest one percent would enjoy tax cuts equal to 4.6 percent of their income.[/i]

 

How is the bold part fair? Do not extend the Bush Tax Cuts and close loopholes.

 

Are you proposing a flat tax? Sign me up.

[DC Tom]

Gangsta way of spelling Crayons... how am I rude?

 

You are right that yes we do have a lot of the debt that needs to be paid off and yes we should curb spending across the board so that we do not build it back up again. Difference with many people is that some just want to take a hatchet and cut away at Social Programs, not thinking about who they are affecting, etc.

 

The other item as I mentioned earlier is tax rates. The tax plan created under President Bush should not be extended. One can attribute $2.74 trillion to those cuts. If the Right was really on board in making drastic changes in order to help this country they would remove those tax cuts. Even though, I wouldn't mind seeing them go up to 45% I would be happy with 39.5%.

 

I would not be for people having to cut into their savings, etc., etc. to fix this economy, just do what is right AND fair.

 

 

 

 

Of course they have the money they are the ones reaping the biggest benefits from the Bush Tax Cuts!!

 

 

On June 7, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the first of the tax cuts that would turn the budget surpluses of the 1990's into historic deficits. A new analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice explains that making these tax cuts permanent would almost double the long-term budget deficit.

 

The richest one percent of taxpayers, with an average income of about $1.4 million in 2013, would get an average tax cut of $68,079 that year if the Bush tax cuts are extended again. The poorest three fifths of taxpayers, with an average income of $29,000 that year, would receive an average tax cut of just $487.

 

The analysis also finds that the higher a filer's income, the larger the tax cut as a percentage of income. If the Bush tax cuts are extended again, in 2013 the poorest one fifth of taxpayers would receive tax cuts equal to less than one percent of their income, while the richest one percent would enjoy tax cuts equal to 4.6 percent of their income.

 

How is the bold part fair? Do not extend the Bush Tax Cuts and close loopholes.

 

In other words, if the tax cuts are cancelled, taxes on the poor go up 1%, while taxes on the rich go up 4.4%. The burden falls on the rich.

 

 

So what, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

[pBills]

In other words, if the tax cuts are cancelled, taxes on the poor go up 1%, while taxes on the rich go up 4.4%. The burden falls on the rich.

 

 

So what, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

 

 

Do you think the tax rate should be lowered from where it is now? If so, do you truly believe that the trickle-down method that has not worked yet will start to work after such a drop in the tax rate?

[DC Tom]

Do you think the tax rate should be lowered from where it is now? If so, do you truly believe that the trickle-down method that has not worked yet will start to work after such a drop in the tax rate?

 

Why? How is that question relevent to ANYTHING I've said in this thread? What discussion are you having?

Edited June 8, 2011 by DC Tom

[Dante]

Do you think the tax rate should be lowered from where it is now? If so, do you truly believe that the trickle-down method that has not worked yet will start to work after such a drop in the tax rate?

It will work and has worked. At least if we use Reagans method. His tax cuts were across the board and it spurred huge economic growth. Everyone prospers when more money is in the hands of citizens and private sector business. Really not that hard to figure out. And things would have continued that way, imho, if Reagan were able to pass a balanced budget amendment. But every time he did he was told it was DOA.

[pBills]

Why? How is that question relevent to ANYTHING I've said in this thread? What discussion are you having?

 

 

Answer the questions:

 

Do you think the tax rate should be lowered from where it is now? If so, do you truly believe that the trickle-down method that has not worked yet will start to work after such a drop in the tax rate?