Fiscal Cliff: Avoid? Drive Right Over?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Understanding the fiscal cliff.

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/?task=viewvideo&video_id=75144

We can have democracy in this country," Louis Brandeis accurately said, “or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”[/quote]

Robert Reich is about as close to a straight-up socialist as you can get and still be labeled mainstream.

If you think socialism is the answer, he’s the right guy to look to, because he is pretty sharp. [/quote]

Call him what you want, but those are the facts. During the Eisenhower (A socialist?) administration nominal tax rate was 91% and the economy grew much better than today. So this non-sense of cutting taxes on the rich spurs economic growth is one of the biggest lies propagated on the U.S. public. We’ve had 12 years of Bush tax cuts for the rich. Where are all the jobs it was supposed to create? Letting them expire just puts the tax rates back to where they were under the Clinton administration and we had a much better economy then than we do now.
[/quote]

During the Eisenhower years there were an abundance of loopholes and not just for the super rich, but for upper income as well. This allowed people more money than the average Joe to sometimes skate without paying a dime. I would return to those rates in a heart beat as long as all the exemptions and loopholes went with it.

By the way that is one very ugly ass that you have as our avatar…but then you know that.[/quote]

Nominal tax rate was 91%. The effective tax rate was 70% with deductions and loopholes. BTW, the loopholes during that time frame were never like what they are today. So an economy with a much higher tax rate on the wealthy provided a much better standard of life for all.

Those are histroic facts that are in direct contrast to the trickle down theory.[/quote]

I could throw a few web sites at you which speak directly to the many loopholes that existed then like this one (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/04/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/) these made things quite favorable for even the upper middle class. But in addition to that the 1950s were unique in economic history. The US had the advantages of cheap capital, cheap energy, cheap labor (no minimum wage), and the only intact advanced manufacturing base in the world. The US economy would have grown in that decade regardless of what the tax rates were.
These four conditions no longer exist. The moral evil of confiscatory tax rates aside, low marginal tax rates are now utterly necessary, as well as a number of other things, for the US economy to grow.

I respect your right to appreciate any size derriere. My only comment, fat out of shape women do not need encouragement

62

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I’m coming around to that way of thinking. But allowing the dems to raise taxes will send us into another recession [/quote]

Are you saying any tax hike on any taxpayers will result in recession?

That is, if Obama gets his way and taxes rise a few points on people making more than $250,000/year, the economy will recede?[/quote]

I am saying that if Obama gets his way and the top rate moves to 40% for the job creators we will slide into a recession. Most don’t realize how close we are at this point. Like a child on top of a slide just sitting there we only need a little push and swoosh we will hit bottom.

63

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
I don’t always agree with the Paul’s but you have to admit the guy has a point

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/06/sen_rand_paul_we_should_let_dems_raise_taxes_and_then_let_them_own_it.html[/quote]

I’m coming around to that way of thinking. But allowing the dems to raise taxes will send us into another recession and there is a lot of pain involved when the economy slows to that point. But then again if the pea brains who voted for Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company get a really good taste of what it’s like when the left gets their way perhaps they will vote for more conservative candidates next time. Rand Paul is making sense…unfortunately.

On the other hand if they hold out and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for everyone that will send us down even faster. And I think in the end Obama will still get the blame as he is the President. [/quote]

Bwhahaha…the Bush tax cuts! They have been in effect for 12 years. Where are the jobs that are supposed to be created? Why were the taz rates during the Clinton Admin higher and we had a better economy?[/quote]

  1. Bush created 4 million new jobs. Compare that to you Obama’s dismal record of creating ZIP!

  2. The economy during the Clinton years could handle a tax hike. However, we would have had even a stronger economy had Clinton not raised taxes.

64

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The republicans don’t want anyone’s taxes to go up. [/quote]

Go back and read , that is what I said
[/quote]

We agree again. You and I should start our own political consulting firm:

                      Zeb + Pitt

Sorry I couldn’t think of a better name. I’ll leave that to you partner.

65

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Taxing the rich more will cure the problem.[/quote]

It never has in the past.

However, lowering taxes in the past has created a booming economy. The top 1% on income earners are already pay 37% of all taxes. The top 10% pay 70% of all taxes. And most of those people are small business people who run S and LLC corps. How much do you think you can tax this group before they decide to…

  1. Raise prices on their customers.

  2. Pay their employees less.

Who suffers in the end?

I promise you this, if Obama gets his way and raises taxes there will be another recession. And the very people that he claims to want to help will be hurting far more than any of the rich people he relentlessly pursues.[/quote]

YAWN:) eye roll :slight_smile: The Top 1% of wage earners mostly work for some one else. And if business could raise the price of the goods and employers pay their employees any less they would do so . It would have nothing to do with tax rates . Come on Zeb who do you think you are talking to a bunch of Republicans :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I agree with most of what you’ve posted. But you are not thinking of the small business people that hire 65% of all new hires in the US. If their taxes go up the economy will tank wanna bet?

66

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

They are going to have to, if they want this paid off. Which begs the question, does anyone (in government) want this debt paid for ?
[/quote]

IMO no , there are too many people getting rich off America , Industrial Prison , Industrial Military , Industry that specializes in America. They pull the strings and the partisan parties pull their constituents right along
[/quote]

YEAH! I agree partner!

67

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Unions [/quote]

I think this is the biggest area we disagree on 40 hour work week,Child labor laws, Health and Safety , are all due to unions in simple terms what are the negatives ?

68

[quote]ZEB wrote:

                      Zeb + Pitt

[/quote]

I like Pitt and Zeb :slight_smile:

69

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Unions [/quote]

I think this is the biggest area we disagree on 40 hour work week,Child labor laws, Health and Safety , are all due to unions in simple terms what are the negatives ?[/quote]

That I have to pay the pension of a teacher who enjoys feeding his kids cookies covered in his sperm.

My point being, you cannot fire a Union worker, it is damn near impossible.

A lawmaker here tried to pass a law to allow the firing of pervert teachers, and Dems STILL shot it down.

70

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

That I have to pay the pension of a teacher [/quote]

I am curious besides Social security or 401k do you have a pension ?

71

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

My point being, you cannot fire a Union worker [/quote]

I am in a right to work state , but in AZ employers of the blue collar treat their employee like shit if they like and get away with it. I mean no lunch in a 12 hour day. Scheduling employees to work telling them today you will make less money than agreed on , 7 days a week . So you will have to excuse me if I do not feel bad for employers

72

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Unions [/quote]

I think this is the biggest area we disagree on 40 hour work week,Child labor laws, Health and Safety , are all due to unions in simple terms what are the negatives ?[/quote]

That I have to pay the pension of a teacher who enjoys feeding his kids cookies covered in his sperm.

My point being, you cannot fire a Union worker, it is damn near impossible.

A lawmaker here tried to pass a law to allow the firing of pervert teachers, and Dems STILL shot it down. [/quote]

So you think the unions are just protecting perverts ?

73

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

As one of the biggest pieces of the pie, I’d START the slicing by looking at military waste. Now look out because all the righties heads are about to explode and the terrorists are taking over the US because of this. God knows if we spent just 1 dollar less on defense every hour would be 9/11 right?
[/quote]

We have to cut everything, there is no other option, everything. Social programs too, and look out because all you lefties are about to explode because god forbid a social program was cut because grandma would be starving in the street right?

[/quote]

Pie chart of Fed budget: Military is the highest. We spend more than the next highest 13 countries combined.

74

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

The effective tax rate was 70% with deductions and loopholes.[/quote]

Links? Because I am under the impression you are straight talking out of your big booty here.

I know you are talking out of your big booty here. This is laughable actually.

Tax rate chart:

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

In what way was the standard of life better than it is today?

Also, please outline the differences in the global market place between then and now… I’ll wait, it is a long list.

[quote]Those are histroic facts that are in direct contrast to the trickle down theory.

[/quote]

Oh… You are one of those.

Nevermind, I won’t get any details at all from your responce.
Links? Because I am under the impression you are straight talking out of your big booty here. [/quote]

75

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

The effective tax rate was 70% with deductions and loopholes.[/quote]

Links? Because I am under the impression you are straight talking out of your big booty here.

I know you are talking out of your big booty here. This is laughable actually.

Historic tax rate chart:

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Tax rate chart:

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

In what way was the standard of life better than it is today?

Also, please outline the differences in the global market place between then and now… I’ll wait, it is a long list.

[quote]Those are histroic facts that are in direct contrast to the trickle down theory.

[/quote]

Oh… You are one of those.

Nevermind, I won’t get any details at all from your responce.
Links? Because I am under the impression you are straight talking out of your big booty here. [/quote]
[/quote]

76

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I understand your position but you have to differentiate between programs. Medicare and things of that nature are not causing the problems. But the military budget - which includes the wars - are a major contributor. Other programs can be kept without any fiscal issues. But the military, corporate welfare and taxing the rich more will cure the problem.[/quote]

The US federal government was never able to tax at a level higher than about 18-20% for a sustained period of time, no matter what the nominal tax rate was.

So, no, “taxing” the rich wont solve anything, they simply will not get more money out of it.

[/quote]
Totally untrue. The U.S. nominal tax rate was much higher than 20% and it was collected. What were the tax rates between the 1950’s thru the 70’s? Far higher than today and we had a much stronger economy. This flies direstly in the face of “cut taxes on the rich and you will spur job growth” crowd. It is one of the U.S. greatest propaganda stories.

Taxing the rich will help along with butchering the bloated military budget. Cutting corporate welfare and helping the housing market stablize.[/quote]

Setting aside the potential “benefits to the economy” for a moment, at what point, in your opinion, does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?

[/quote]

Setting aside your economic philosophy at what point do you think the top 1% were confiscating the money of the middle class and poor during the economic collapse of 2008?

77

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
. We spend more than the next highest 13 countries combined.

[/quote]

I hear if you count what we spend on Homeland Security it is more than the rest of the world

78

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

The effective tax rate was 70% with deductions and loopholes.[/quote]

Links? Because I am under the impression you are straight talking out of your big booty here.

I know you are talking out of your big booty here. This is laughable actually.

In what way was the standard of life better than it is today?

Also, please outline the differences in the global market place between then and now… I’ll wait, it is a long list.

[quote]Those are histroic facts that are in direct contrast to the trickle down theory.

[/quote]

Oh… You are one of those.

Nevermind, I won’t get any details at all from your responce.
Links? Because I am under the impression you are straight talking out of your big booty here. [/quote]

Feast on this:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/taxes/

79

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I understand your position but you have to differentiate between programs. Medicare and things of that nature are not causing the problems. But the military budget - which includes the wars - are a major contributor. Other programs can be kept without any fiscal issues. But the military, corporate welfare and taxing the rich more will cure the problem.[/quote]

The US federal government was never able to tax at a level higher than about 18-20% for a sustained period of time, no matter what the nominal tax rate was.

So, no, “taxing” the rich wont solve anything, they simply will not get more money out of it.

[/quote]
Totally untrue. The U.S. nominal tax rate was much higher than 20% and it was collected. What were the tax rates between the 1950’s thru the 70’s? Far higher than today and we had a much stronger economy. This flies direstly in the face of “cut taxes on the rich and you will spur job growth” crowd. It is one of the U.S. greatest propaganda stories.

Taxing the rich will help along with butchering the bloated military budget. Cutting corporate welfare and helping the housing market stablize.[/quote]

Nonsense.

Never, for any sustained period of time.

I could post statistics, but you dont care anyway.

Princesses, unicorns and whatnot.

80

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

                      Zeb + Pitt

[/quote]

I like Pitt and Zeb :)[/quote]

Hmmm…how about

ZIT and PEB?