[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You can’t just “tax the rich” your way out of fiscal mess like we have. [/quote]
I agree unequivocally. Good post.[/quote]
Then stop advocating the wealthy pay even more. [/quote]
I’m not. I’m saying the idea that the poor should be paying more is dumb.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You can’t just “tax the rich” your way out of fiscal mess like we have. [/quote]
I agree unequivocally. Good post.[/quote]
Then stop advocating the wealthy pay even more. [/quote]
I’m not. I’m saying the idea that the poor should be paying more is dumb.[/quote]
I disagree that a person making $34,000 is “poor.” Poor in the USA is rich almost every where else.
Further, being that income tax is a percentage, it naturally decreases with decreased income. It is not necessary to completly skew the tax so progressively as to punish people.
That said, I don’t expect massive revenue from the bottom 70% paying their fair share.
I expect them to become aware of how the government wastes their money and to vote accordingly.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I disagree that a person making $34,000 is “poor.” Poor in the USA is rich almost every where else.
Further, being that income tax is a percentage, it naturally decreases with decreased income. It is not necessary to completly skew the tax so progressively as to punish people.
That said, I don’t expect massive revenue from the bottom 70% paying their fair share.
I expect them to become aware of how the government wastes their money and to vote accordingly.[/quote]
You’re right, the poor in the USA are rich compared with the poor of Africa and Asia. And a sufferer of Crohn’s Disease is healthy compared with somebody in the late stages of AIDS.
Also, this notion that a progressive tax is by definition some form of “punishment” for the wealthy–that if Mitt Romney has to pay a seventh of his income in tax, so does a guy who’s making minimum wage–is ridiculous. Again, that would send a lot of people on the cusp straight into the “takers” category.
Anyway, I’m not sure if you’re arguing for lower taxes on the wealthy or higher taxes on the poor. If the former, then I have no objection whatsoever, so long as spending is cut alongside.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
so long as spending is cut alongside.[/quote]
I would venture to say you’d see support, or at least silent disapproval and tolerance of a 5% increase in taxes from everyone (short of those with the entitlement mentality, but I’m talking rational people here) if the people saw a real, documented and perpetuated 15-20% decrease in spending.
If the government was to show they were serious about cutting spending, a lot of people who are anti tax increase, would tolerate some increases.
I too would like to see the increases throughout all brackets, 2% for the lower brackets, 4% for the higher, something like that. I want everyone to have skin in the game.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
so long as spending is cut alongside.[/quote]
I would venture to say you’d see support, or at least silent disapproval and tolerance of a 5% increase in taxes from everyone (short of those with the entitlement mentality, but I’m talking rational people here) if the people saw a real, documented and perpetuated 15-20% decrease in spending.
If the government was to show they were serious about cutting spending, a lot of people who are anti tax increase, would tolerate some increases.
I too would like to see the increases throughout all brackets, 2% for the lower brackets, 4% for the higher, something like that. I want everyone to have skin in the game.[/quote]
I’d rather see taxes stay where they are or even drop somewhat while the economy is still sputtering. A few years from now I’d support something like this, so long as the numbers are back to healthy.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
so long as spending is cut alongside.[/quote]
I would venture to say you’d see support, or at least silent disapproval and tolerance of a 5% increase in taxes from everyone (short of those with the entitlement mentality, but I’m talking rational people here) if the people saw a real, documented and perpetuated 15-20% decrease in spending.
If the government was to show they were serious about cutting spending, a lot of people who are anti tax increase, would tolerate some increases.
I too would like to see the increases throughout all brackets, 2% for the lower brackets, 4% for the higher, something like that. I want everyone to have skin in the game.[/quote]
I’d rather see taxes stay where they are or even drop somewhat while the economy is still sputtering. A few years from now I’d support something like this, so long as the numbers are back to healthy.[/quote]
Agree to agree. I was speaking in general terms mostly.
But yeah, people would swallow that pill if it was greased up a bit. I mean as of now, the Obama Tax Increases are like govn’t sticking it’s finger in the sand and then shoving it in your ear. If someone, anyone, could cut spending by a real amount, it would just be a wet willy.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
the Obama Tax Increases are like govn’t sticking it’s finger in the sand and then shoving it in your ear. [/quote]
Or like somebody looking at their household finances and saying, “honey, we’re in the red by $170,000/month, I think you should start working part-time at the supermarket.”
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
so long as spending is cut alongside.[/quote]
I would venture to say you’d see support, or at least silent disapproval and tolerance of a 5% increase in taxes from everyone (short of those with the entitlement mentality, but I’m talking rational people here) if the people saw a real, documented and perpetuated 15-20% decrease in spending.
If the government was to show they were serious about cutting spending, a lot of people who are anti tax increase, would tolerate some increases.
I too would like to see the increases throughout all brackets, 2% for the lower brackets, 4% for the higher, something like that. I want everyone to have skin in the game.[/quote]
I’d rather see taxes stay where they are or even drop somewhat while the economy is still sputtering. A few years from now I’d support something like this, so long as the numbers are back to healthy.[/quote]
I concur with the posters saying everyone needs skin in the game or there will never be cuts in the budget.
It’s like my brother who orders beer because he knows I will pay for it. No motive to conserve.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I disagree that a person making $34,000 is “poor.” Poor in the USA is rich almost every where else.
Further, being that income tax is a percentage, it naturally decreases with decreased income. It is not necessary to completly skew the tax so progressively as to punish people.
That said, I don’t expect massive revenue from the bottom 70% paying their fair share.
I expect them to become aware of how the government wastes their money and to vote accordingly.[/quote]
You’re right, the poor in the USA are rich compared with the poor of Africa and Asia. And a sufferer of Crohn’s Disease is healthy compared with somebody in the late stages of AIDS.
Also, this notion that a progressive tax is by definition some form of “punishment” for the wealthy–that if Mitt Romney has to pay a seventh of his income in tax, so does a guy who’s making minimum wage–is ridiculous. Again, that would send a lot of people on the cusp straight into the “takers” category.
Anyway, I’m not sure if you’re arguing for lower taxes on the wealthy or higher taxes on the poor. If the former, then I have no objection whatsoever, so long as spending is cut alongside.[/quote]
It is a punishment on wealth creation, in the same manner a speeding ticket is a punishment on driving too fast. There is NO logical difference between a fine and a tax. We call it a tax when applied to something positive, and a fine when applied to a negative. If a progressive income tax isn’t a punishment for getting rich, speeding tickets aren’t a punishment for speeding.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is a punishment on wealth creation, in the same manner a speeding ticket is a punishment on driving too fast. There is NO logical difference between a fine and a tax. We call it a tax when applied to something positive, and a fine when applied to a negative. If a progressive income tax isn’t a punishment for getting rich, speeding tickets aren’t a punishment for speeding.[/quote]
Semantics. Call it a “punishment,” doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t do jack shit to alter my point–that raising taxes on people on the cusp of welfare eligibility is stupid.
The distribution of income tax shares is primarily a function of the income distribution itself. Even if there was a (slightly) regressive tax system, the top earners would be paying the most in taxes. Since a lot of people in the US earn a lot money, these people will also pay a lot of the taxes. Prosperity FTW!
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
I concur with the posters saying everyone needs skin in the game or there will never be cuts in the budget.
It’s like my brother who orders beer because he knows I will pay for it. No motive to conserve.[/quote]
A point to consider on this is not: Is it fair in the sense we are currently arguing about right now, but to realize that if you actually DO want policy change, everybody needs to feel the pain in order to realize what is actually going on–it’s like not realizing that school is work in your first freshman semester and making a couple mistakes to lose a scholarship… and then having to work for your school… Yeah, depending on the mistakes it might be seen as “unfair” to take away all the aid. Maybe if just the very right circumstances applied even the more conservative here would go “yeah, that smells like bullshit to take that away”. But that was the cost of a life realization that is going to serve you infinitely better than the unfairness visited upon you.
And therefore, that is grounds enough to have almost everybody paying some sort of tax. The realization must come, and the only way for it to come is “controlled unfairness” if you will.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is a punishment on wealth creation, in the same manner a speeding ticket is a punishment on driving too fast. There is NO logical difference between a fine and a tax. We call it a tax when applied to something positive, and a fine when applied to a negative. If a progressive income tax isn’t a punishment for getting rich, speeding tickets aren’t a punishment for speeding.[/quote]
Semantics. Call it a “punishment,” doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t do jack shit to alter my point–that raising taxes on people on the cusp of welfare eligibility is stupid.[/quote]
No more stupid than raising taxes on the only class of people who can pull this country out of the economic toilet…the job creators! Yet, Obama has gone after them with a vengeance. Tell me again how taking money away from small business people by raising their taxes and causing their health care expenses to go up with Obamacare is actually going to help the economy.
Go ahead explain that one to all of us.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is a punishment on wealth creation, in the same manner a speeding ticket is a punishment on driving too fast. There is NO logical difference between a fine and a tax. We call it a tax when applied to something positive, and a fine when applied to a negative. If a progressive income tax isn’t a punishment for getting rich, speeding tickets aren’t a punishment for speeding.[/quote]
Semantics. Call it a “punishment,” doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t do jack shit to alter my point–that raising taxes on people on the cusp of welfare eligibility is stupid.[/quote]
I want to share something with SMH…
Our governor sold Proposition 30 as a tax increase needed for schools, he talked about how the kids needed the money, and how could we deny “the children.”
This tax taxed the wealthy and raised sales tax by 1/4%, bringing in an estimated $6 Billion.
So what happened once it passed, the lame ass governor gave Union workers raises and plans to expand Medicaid.
Oh and his budget for next year spends $6 Billion more than last year, how convenient since Prop 30 brings in $6 Billion. The tax was passed to pay for the spending increase, we are now over $100 Billion per year in spending, of which $46 Billion goes to the schools.
Governor Brown lied, the money went to give raises to Union workers, it did nothing for “the children.” Now, if you want to suggest that paying teachers more money equates to better student performance, we (California) are ranked 36th in education while having the highest paid teachers in the nation. So 35 states are doing it better for cheaper.
I would almost argue that raising taxes on the wealthy (or on anyone) is less important than how the money is truly spent.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is a punishment on wealth creation, in the same manner a speeding ticket is a punishment on driving too fast. There is NO logical difference between a fine and a tax. We call it a tax when applied to something positive, and a fine when applied to a negative. If a progressive income tax isn’t a punishment for getting rich, speeding tickets aren’t a punishment for speeding.[/quote]
Semantics. Call it a “punishment,” doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t do jack shit to alter my point–that raising taxes on people on the cusp of welfare eligibility is stupid.[/quote]
No more stupid than raising taxes on the only class of people who can pull this country out of the economic toilet…the job creators! Yet, Obama has gone after them with a vengeance. Tell me again how taking money away from small business people by raising their taxes and causing their health care expenses to go up with Obamacare is actually going to help the economy.
Go ahead explain that one to all of us.[/quote]
It’s not.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is a punishment on wealth creation, in the same manner a speeding ticket is a punishment on driving too fast. There is NO logical difference between a fine and a tax. We call it a tax when applied to something positive, and a fine when applied to a negative. If a progressive income tax isn’t a punishment for getting rich, speeding tickets aren’t a punishment for speeding.[/quote]
Semantics. Call it a “punishment,” doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t do jack shit to alter my point–that raising taxes on people on the cusp of welfare eligibility is stupid.[/quote]
No more stupid than raising taxes on the only class of people who can pull this country out of the economic toilet…the job creators! Yet, Obama has gone after them with a vengeance. Tell me again how taking money away from small business people by raising their taxes and causing their health care expenses to go up with Obamacare is actually going to help the economy.
Go ahead explain that one to all of us.[/quote]
It’s not.[/quote]
Then you’d have to admit that Obama was pretty stupid for pushing such legislation (Obamacare). Especially in his first two years when he had both houses of congress with the majority of democrats. He could have actually done something to move the economy forward. Instead he spent countless days and months cramming Obamacare down everyones throat. Bad move by a really bad President!
He’s an idealogue and not a very smart one.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Then you’d have to admit that Obama was pretty stupid for pushing such legislation (Obamacare). Especially in his first two years when he had both houses of congress with the majority of democrats. He could have actually done something to move the economy forward.[/quote]
Yes, I agree with you.
I certainly wouldn’t have done it. And the economy would have been better off.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is a punishment on wealth creation, in the same manner a speeding ticket is a punishment on driving too fast. There is NO logical difference between a fine and a tax. We call it a tax when applied to something positive, and a fine when applied to a negative. If a progressive income tax isn’t a punishment for getting rich, speeding tickets aren’t a punishment for speeding.[/quote]
There is a significant difference between the two. A fine is intended to discourage an activity. A tax can be intended to discourage an activity but often is not. Income tax is not a punishment. The government wants you to work to earn more money so that it can take a piece.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is a punishment on wealth creation, in the same manner a speeding ticket is a punishment on driving too fast. There is NO logical difference between a fine and a tax. We call it a tax when applied to something positive, and a fine when applied to a negative. If a progressive income tax isn’t a punishment for getting rich, speeding tickets aren’t a punishment for speeding.[/quote]
There is a significant difference between the two. A fine is intended to discourage an activity. A tax can be intended to discourage an activity but often is not. Income tax is not a punishment. The government wants you to work to earn more money so that it can take a piece.
[/quote]
I was speaking of function, not intent. Intent makes no difference to the people paying. I could shoot you to free your spirit of your corrupted physical body, it’s still murder and you’re still dead.
My point here is that YOUR perceived difference is only semantics. You just apply different terminology to the same thing to change the connotation.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Jewbacca, unbelievable post. [/quote]
I have to agree, again.
Unfortunately, the ones who agree with JB are the only ones who read him.
Those who would actually learn something from that post won’t bother to read it.
[/quote]
Not true. Although I agree it is a great post, but there are many things I haven’t agreed with him on.