Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:58 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Do you think the "rich" should be paying more in taxes? Back to Topics
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,751
Points:2,890,430
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2005 3:12:20 PM

If so, how do you define rich?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 11:43:49 PM

>>Isn't it true that after the 2003 tax cuts, that starting in 2004, federal revenue grew 44% over the next 4 years?<<

Again, problems with cause and effect. It's easy to cherry-pick 4 good years (especially since they were the only ones in which revenue increased during Bush's 8 years) and imply they were due solely to "tax cuts". But keep in mind that those same tax cuts, both the 2001 AND 2003 cuts, dragged down the revenue by so much - an unprecedented 3 years in a row of declining revenue! - that there was nowhere for it go but up.

What happened during Bush's first 6-7 years in office was akin to taking over an NFL team that won 13 games the year before he got there, instituted changes that resulted in 10, 6, and 2 wins, but then 4, 6, 8, and 9 wins over the next 4 years (and, of course, collapsing to 6 wins the next year, then 1 win before he got fired in mid-season). The team that won 9 games is still worse than it was when he took over, but you and others would point to it as some sort of great achievement.

 
>>Then decreased dramatically due to the Frank-Dodd financial collapse?<<

Uh, maybe you'd better check your history on this one.

[Edited by: NickHammer at 3/27/2015 11:44:10 PM EST]
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 11:08:03 PM

>>If that's the case it's quite curious how others seem to pick you out at random from the herd in order to "project their own shortcomings" by questioning your reading comprehension. As one who doesn't believe in coincidences, I consider it highly unlikely that mere chance is at work here.<<

That's an extremely poorly reasoned conclusion. But judging by your other conclusions regarding anything or anyone who is not a right-winger, which appear to be based on nothing more than what you want to be true, that's not surprising.
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:16,093
Points:2,018,760
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 5:37:25 PM

Isn't it true that after the 2003 tax cuts, that starting in 2004, federal revenue grew 44% over the next 4 years? Then decreased dramatically due to the Frank-Dodd financial collapse?
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,952
Points:2,069,050
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 5:11:02 PM

nh: "Those would be people who like to project their own shortcomings onto others."


If that's the case it's quite curious how others seem to pick you out at random from the herd in order to "project their own shortcomings" by questioning your reading comprehension. As one who doesn't believe in coincidences, I consider it highly unlikely that mere chance is at work here.



mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 3/27/2015 5:14:25 PM EST]
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 12:46:38 PM

>>nh: "So concerned, that you question my ability to read."
Seems a number of people have raised that question recently.<<

Those would be people who like to project their own shortcomings onto others.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 12:28:52 PM

"Seems a number of people have raised that question recently."

Does mud ever post anything related to the OP?
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:2,633
Points:1,302,945
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 11:10:23 AM

THey do always
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,952
Points:2,069,050
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 9:12:43 AM

nh: "So concerned, that you question my ability to read."


Seems a number of people have raised that question recently.



mudtoe
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 9:10:46 AM

>>Either top marginal tax rates decreased sequentially from 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1988 or they didn't.<<

Oh, now you're only concerned with TOP marginal tax rates. That's called "moving the goalposts", yet another of the fallacies you love to spew when you can't make an honest argument.

Funny thing - you seem sooooooooooo concerned that I agree with you that the "most significant tax cuts in the 2000s occurred in 2003". So concerned, that you question my ability to read. Yet here, you're not so concerned that the most significant tax cuts in the 80s - the ones that affected the most people by the biggest percent - occurred in 1982 and 83. And, whaddya know - there was barely an increase in tax revenue in FY 1982 and a DECREASE in FY 1983.

 
>>Either top marginal tax rates decreased from 39.6% in 2000 to 38.6% in 2002 or they didn't.
Either top marginal tax rates decreased from 38.6% in 2002 to 35% in 2003 or they didn't.<<

And revenue DECREASED in those years (and 2001, too. You forgot to include that the TOP marginal tax rate - along with the others - also decreased in 2001). If your point was to prove yourself wrong, great job!

 
>>Can you not read? The most significant tax cuts in the 2000s occurred in 2003, not calendar years 2001 or 2002 and not fiscal years 2001 or 2002. They occurred during the year 2003.<<

And what happened in FY 2003? Tax revenue DECREASED. Read that.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 3:12:41 AM

"No, that only happened during the 60s, NOT the 80s OR the mid 2000s. In the 80s, the marginal tax rate decreased in 1982, and again slightly in 1983; and tax revenue DECREASED in FY 1983. There were NO marginal tax rate decrease in "the mid 2000s" - only automatic adjustments for inflation, "

What can I say. Either top marginal tax rates decreased from 91% in 1963 to 70% in 1965 or they didn't.
Either top marginal tax rates decreased sequentially from 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1988 or they didn't.
Either top marginal tax rates decreased from 39.6% in 2000 to 38.6% in 2002 or they didn't.
Either top marginal tax rates decreased from 38.6% in 2002 to 35% in 2003 or they didn't.

"They do when I post that there were two months of recession in "FY2002" and you incorrectly tell me I'm wrong because you've decided to talk about calendar year 2002."

Can you not read? The most significant tax cuts in the 2000s occurred in 2003, not calendar years 2001 or 2002 and not fiscal years 2001 or 2002. They occurred during the year 2003.
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 12:03:06 AM

>>Looking back over 50 year, it is evident that during periods of marginal tax rate decreases, tax revenue continued to increase.<<

No, that's NOT evident. What's only evident is that before FY2001, tax revenue increased just about EVERY YEAR.

>>That happened during the 60s, 80s and the mid 2000s.<<

No, that only happened during the 60s, NOT the 80s OR the mid 2000s. In the 80s, the marginal tax rate decreased in 1982, and again slightly in 1983; and tax revenue DECREASED in FY 1983. There were NO marginal tax rate decrease in "the mid 2000s" - only automatic adjustments for inflation, so that point is completely invalid. There were, however, marginal tax rate decreases in 2001, 2002 AND 2003, and tax revenue DECREASED in FY 2001, 2002 AND 2003.

>>Conversely, there are periods when tax rate increases were implemented and tax revenue became stagnant. In 1991 George Bush signed legislation that increased the top marginal rate from 28% to 31%. That was during a recession, of course. Just the same, increasing taxes didn’t help.<<

Your example doesn't back up your claim. In fact, it does just the opposite, as tax revenue INCREASED in FY 1991 AND 1992 (and every year that followed until 2001).

 
>>And, you have your nubers wrong, again.<<

So far, you haven't shown any of my numbers that are wrong. Again, just repeating that doesn't make it true. You have to prove it - and, so far, you haven't.

 
>>When are you going to figure out the marginal tax rate decreases and other significant tax decreases took place in 2003?<<

When are you going to figure out that marginal tax rates decreased in 2001, 2002, AND 2003 - not just 2003? And guess what else decreased all those years? That's right - tax revenue!

 
>>Fiscal years or calendar years in 2001 and 2002 don’t make any difference.<<

They do when I post that there were two months of recession in "FY2002" and you incorrectly tell me I'm wrong because you've decided to talk about calendar year 2002.

 

It's great that you provided links to both the Historical Federal Receipts and the Income Tax Rates History. But I have to wonder - did you actually look at them?

[Edited by: NickHammer at 3/27/2015 12:04:45 AM EST]
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 10:02:58 PM

“You must think that if you just keep repeating yourself, that will make it magically come true.”

Click on the links and the magic begins: Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary and Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History

Looking back over 50 year, it is evident that during periods of marginal tax rate decreases, tax revenue continued to increase. That happened during the 60s, 80s and the mid 2000s. Conversely, there are periods when tax rate increases were implemented and tax revenue became stagnant. In 1991 George Bush signed legislation that increased the top marginal rate from 28% to 31%. That was during a recession, of course. Just the same, increasing taxes didn’t help.

“Is this why you have convinced yourself that tax cuts alone caused revenue to rise for 4 whole years while ignoring the fact that revenue had increased for 39 of the previous 41 years, all without the marvelous Bush tax cuts?”

Never said that. I have said the economy influences tax revenue. Tax RATES influence the economy, along with inflation, recessions, muslims crashing planes into buildings. And, you have your nubers wrong, again.

“BTW, did you ever learn the difference between a fiscal year and a calendar year?”

A long time ago. When are you going to figure out the marginal tax rate decreases and other significant tax decreases took place in 2003? Fiscal years or calendar years in 2001 and 2002 don’t make any difference.


[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 3/26/2015 10:06:20 PM EST]
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 4:43:07 PM

>>If you label everything that doesn't fit your ideology as Idiot™, Straw-man, and now lie, you can construct any type of world you like.<<

You must think that if you just keep repeating yourself, that will make it magically come true. Is this why you have convinced yourself that tax cuts alone caused revenue to rise for 4 whole years while ignoring the fact that revenue had increased for 39 of the previous 41 years, all without the marvelous Bush tax cuts?

 
>>Some of us have to contend with real world events and consequences.<<

I'm not so sure you should be counting yourself in that group, as you appear to be more interested in fantasy land arguments in place of factual ones.

BTW, did you ever learn the difference between a fiscal year and a calendar year? You sure didn't seem to when you told me to "get [my] facts straight" because there was "no recession in 2002", even though I specifically wrote "FY2002". We here in the real world know these things.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 3:33:54 PM

If you label everything that doesn't fit your ideology as Idiot™, Straw-man, and now lie, you can construct any type of world you like. Some of us have to contend with real world events and consequences.

[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 3/26/2015 3:34:58 PM EST]
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 3:19:59 PM

>>If label everything that doesn't fit your ideology as Idiot™ or Straw-man, you can you can construct any type of world you like.<<

If you can't be honest in your postings (and you haven't been), you will be called out on it.

You post a straw man, I'll call you out on it. You post another straw man, I'll call you out on it again. You post a lie, I'll call you out on that, too. Heck, based on your attempt to disprove your lie, all you did was show that you don't even know what the "idiot defense" is.

So, I'm sorry that you thought I called you an idiot. I actually thought that, like so many others here, you were attempting to mislead others, which is why I provided the only two possible explanations for why anyone could possibly post something that is so factually outrageous.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,548
Points:478,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 3:03:24 PM

"George Bush is an Idiot"

It would help if he could form a coherent sentence...

SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 2:58:28 PM

Nickhammer: "Sorry, I never used "the Idiot™ defense". I guess now you've gone from fallacies to flat-out lies. Congrats!"

Nickhammer: "I can never tell if the people who write statements like the above are complete idiots who don't understand cause and effect, or if their goal is to mislead others."

"Another straw man. You can't help yourself, can you?"

If label everything that doesn't fit your ideology as Idiot™ or Straw-man, you can you can construct any type of world you like.
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 2:44:40 PM

>>You are the one using the Idiot™ defense.<<

Sorry, I never used "the Idiot™ defense". I guess now you've gone from fallacies to flat-out lies. Congrats!

 
>>Then get your facts straight. There was no recession in 2002.<<

My facts are straight. Do you not know what "FY2002" means?

But, hey, thanks for admitting that "There was no recession in 2002" (although the recession did last through the first 2 months of FISCAL YEAR 2002). And you know what? There was no recession in 2003, either. So, how do you explain the declining revenue in both of those years?

Wow, first you claimed that every decline in tax revenue was due to a recession, then you claimed "almost" every one. Now, you've gone to the point of arguing AGAINST a recession in a year that saw revenue decline. Don't backtrack too far - you might fall off a cliff.

 
>>Second, tax rebates to people who don't pay tax are not reductions in marginal income tax rates.<<

Another straw man. You can't help yourself, can you?

It's all right there in the FactCheck article I linked, which in turn links right to the CBO document, and none of it has to do with either "people who don't pay tax" or "marginal income tax rates". Nor did "people who don't pay tax" even get tax rebates.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 1:44:31 PM

"Straw man alert! You love throwing around the fallacies, don't you?"

You are the one using the Idiot™ defense. Doesn't get any more void of substance than that.

"It has nothing to do with "how much [I] wish [anything] to be true". Facts are facts - the 2001 recession was small and short-lived, covering only the last 6 months of FY2001 and first 2 months of FY2002. Even with the recession, tax revenue would not have declined in FY2001. Heck, even without the rest of the tax cuts, the $35 billion in tax rebates alone changed FY2001 revenue from an increase to a decrease."

Then get your facts straight. There was no recession in 2002. Second, tax rebates to people who don't pay tax are not reductions in marginal income tax rates. Significant reductions in marginal tax rates, capital gains rates, estate tax rates and exemptions, and more did not occur until 2003.

NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 12:16:19 PM

>>Actually, recessions coincide with almost every downturn in tax revenue in US history.<<

I'm sorry, previously you said that it was "every other down tax revenue year". Are you now backtracking to "almost every"? Or by "every other" did you mean "this one, but not the next, but then the next one, but not the one after that, etc."?

 
>>The intensity of your belief that George Bush is an Idiot™ is obvious.<<

Straw man alert! You love throwing around the fallacies, don't you?

 
>>No matter how much you wish it to be true, the fact remains, the US went into recession in the first quarter of 2001, prior to his tax rebates and 2003 tax cuts.<<

It has nothing to do with "how much [I] wish [anything] to be true". Facts are facts - the 2001 recession was small and short-lived, covering only the last 6 months of FY2001 and first 2 months of FY2002. Even with the recession, tax revenue would not have declined in FY2001. Heck, even without the rest of the tax cuts, the $35 billion in tax rebates alone changed FY2001 revenue from an increase to a decrease.

 
>>Muslim fanatics crashing aircraft into US buildings didn't help much either.<<

Maybe they were pissed about not receiving a tax rebate.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 11:31:35 AM

"I already identified the one that caused the down revenue year of FY2001 - Bush's tax cuts."

Actually, recessions coincide with almost every downturn in tax revenue in US history. The intensity of your belief that George Bush is an Idiot™ is obvious. No matter how much you wish it to be true, the fact remains, the US went into recession in the first quarter of 2001, prior to his tax rebates and 2003 tax cuts.

Muslim fanatics crashing aircraft into US buildings didn't help much either.
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 10:40:37 AM

>>See if you can identify the significant economic events that happened in 2000, 2001, and 2008, and every other down tax revenue year for the past 100 years.<<

I already identified the one that caused the down revenue year of FY2001 - Bush's tax cuts.

Now let's see if you can identify the "significant economic events" that happened in the "down tax revenue years" of 2002 and 2003.

 
>>The fact still remains: after cutting the upper marginal rates, reducing capital gains rates, and reducing estate tax liabilities, tax revenues increased. Those took effect after 2003.<<

After an unprecedented 3 straight years of declining revenue (heck, that didn't even happen during the Great Depression!), revenue was bound to increase, tax cut or not.

It's funny how, before George W. Bush took office, revenue had increased every year for the previous 17 years (and was on pace for an 18th before his tax cuts), along with 39 of the previous 41 years. Yet, according to you, the only reason revenue finally started increasing 3 years later was tax cuts. It's like all those other years never even existed.

The fact still remains: tax revenues increased all those other years WITHOUT tax cuts.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 1:37:39 AM

"I can never tell if the people who write statements like the above are complete idiots who don't understand cause and effect, or if their goal is to mislead others."

The old Idiot™ label. Must have hit a code word.

Speaking of "cause and effect", here's some homework for you. See if you can identify the significant economic events that happened in 2000, 2001, and 2008, and every other down tax revenue year for the past 100 years.

As far as the "Bush Tax Cuts" causing decreased revenues, the decreased upper rates on the taxpayers who contribute 97% of the tax revenue didn't start to take place until 2003 and were phased in over the next 5 years. They were not only top marginal rates, but capital gains reductions, reductions in estate tax rates and increases in exemptions, and more.

The fact still remains: after cutting the upper marginal rates, reducing capital gains rates, and reducing estate tax liabilities, tax revenues increased. Those took effect after 2003.

NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 12:19:22 AM

>>As history has shown during the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush administrations: decreasing tax rates did increase tax revenue.<<

I can never tell if the people who write statements like the above are complete idiots who don't understand cause and effect, or if their goal is to mislead others. The ONLY times in the last 40 years that government revenue went down were FYs 1983, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2009. Reagan was President for the first one, and Bush for the next 5 (yes, technically FY2001 would be Clinton's last year, but Bush's 2001 tax rebates alone caused revenue to decrease that year).

Like clockwork, revenue went up all on its own - except when Reagan and Bush screwed around with tax cuts.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,548
Points:478,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 6:30:06 PM

Tax revenues up from 03 to 07?

Big surprise.

That totally coincides with the real estate bubble run-up.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 6:28:54 PM

"Explain how you feel about a person who earned more and paid in more gets less (proportionately) at retirement."

SS is not and has never been set-up to pay out as you would seem to desire it. It is meant to provide people with a base amount of funding in retirement - as in social (public) security.

Yes, those who make more put more into it - just like those who make more pay more in taxes, yet still get the same response from their local fire department, etc. Or do you think those who pay more in taxes should also have more fire fighters respond to their call? Or more teachers in their child's classroom?

Those who make enough should have plans to support themselves in retirement anyway without support from the government - I hope you aren't depending too much on SS for your long term retirement plans - I certainly am not.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 6:24:02 PM

"Ohhhhhh I get it - you are opting to just play silly childish games - now that brings your comments into clear focus. It also tends to place a value on them."

Wassamatta, you can joke with me but you can't take a joke? ;)
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,230
Points:1,712,380
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 6:05:25 PM

"Gee Weasle - if you cant hold a participate in a polite conversation among adults why do you even try?" OOOOOOPPPPS made a dumb mistake in typing adn reading ----- Should read ---
.
.
Gee Weasle - if you cant hold, or participate in, a polite conversation among adults why do you even try?
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:16,093
Points:2,018,760
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 4:37:22 PM

Total federal revenues soared from $793.7 billion in 2003, when the last of the Bush tax cuts were enacted, to $1.16 trillion in 2007, a 47% increase.
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,230
Points:1,712,380
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 4:35:52 PM

Gee Weasle - if you cant hold a participate in a polite conversation among adults why do you even try?

Ohhhhhh I get it - you are opting to just play silly childish games - now that brings your comments into clear focus. It also tends to place a value on them.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,771
Points:2,963,980
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 4:29:51 PM

SoylentGrain - "As history has shown during the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush administrations: decreasing tax rates did increase tax revenue"

Haven't we been through this many times already?

The Bush tax cuts drastically reduced revenues. And it took them years to recover.



[Edited by: rjhenn at 3/25/2015 4:36:51 PM EST]
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 12:40:21 PM

You first. Explain how you feel about a person who earned more and paid in more gets less (proportionately) at retirement.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 12:38:21 PM

"Fly - Bingo! And "Thud""

Tell me my dear 75 - what is the point of Social Security in your world?
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,548
Points:478,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 12:36:08 PM

No way.

The rich are taxed to death!

They can barely afford a half dozen country club memberships or the leer jets to fly to them all.

What we need to do is have more class warfare on the middle and the poor.

Like corrupt police departments handing out tickets for menial stuff and trumped up charges. Then when some of them can't or won't pay we double the charges. And if they still don't pay we issue warrants. When they finally have their day in court the fines and charges are so high they have to work out a payment plan. Then we've got em right where we want em. Now they have entered into a kind of indentured servitude for life.

That way we rich can avoid having any tax increases to pay for privatized prisons and permanent war and such.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 12:15:17 PM

Fly - Bingo! And "Thud"
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 12:01:58 PM

"Are you going to address the issue or play more of your mindless little games?"

Only as long as you are.

"I75 - my vote - for what its worth - is that he will opt for playing games."

Cut the crap.
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,230
Points:1,712,380
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 10:50:33 AM

I75 - my vote - for what its worth - is that he will opt for playing games.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 9:09:07 AM

Nice dodge, but yo did not address the issue. You tried to make the issue me and my use of a well-worn derogatory, but you did not address the issue of whether a person who earned more throughout their working life should get a proportionately larger Social Security payment than the person who earned less?

Are you going to address the issue or play more of your mindless little games?

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 3/25/2015 9:09:36 AM EST]
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 8:48:39 AM

"If a person earned $80,00 per year throughout his working life, he should indeed get twice as much in SS payments as a person who earned $40,000 throughout his working life. Because he built his life and lifestyle on that income, that he earned, and to pay him less in retirement so that some slacker can have more is simply wrong."

It is laughable to blindly call somebody who earned less income during their working lives a 'slacker', especially when arbitrarily pulling numbers from your rear end.

If you don't understand the concept, you have no moral bearing. Period.

;)

But please, tell us again how you don't hate all of the working poor who use SNAP?

SMH
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 8:36:43 AM

This really isn't news but it is a fresh perspective on what we all know to be the truth:

The Lie behind Social Security

"Social Security is in trouble. We all know this, or should."

"Contrary to public misconception, Social Security is not a level playing field -- it is, in fact, confiscatory."

"The Democrats are fond of asking, “Are the rich paying their fair share?” But the real question is: Why do those who work harder all their lives end up with less? In sum, those who make more, are paying for it later -- the Social Security system is rigged to pay them less."

Of course, the usurpers (Democrats, chiefly, with assorted other scallywags thrown in) will respond that "the rich are more able to pay higher amounts so they should". That is, of course, the classic Marxist line "From each according to his ability, To Each according to his need".
If a person earned $80,00 per year throughout his working life, he should indeed get twice as much in SS payments as a person who earned $40,000 throughout his working life. Because he built his life and lifestyle on that income, that he earned, and to pay him less in retirement so that some slacker can have more is simply wrong.
If you don't understand the concept, you have no moral bearing. Period.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 1:17:34 PM

"Yes, I read the article. It makes no difference what 80% of the experts surveyed feel."

I love people who think they know more than everybody else...

SMH
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 1:10:37 PM

Yes, I read the article. It makes no difference what 80% of the experts surveyed feel. If I did what experts told me to do all the time, I would be broke. Its highly likely, the people who create and build things share that philosophy, as well.

I spent a career creating, building, and marketing product. I have also been investing in real estate for almost 40 years. In the end each and every venture or investment boiled down to a few fundamentals. Where my money went, where investors in my ventures money went, or the company's money I worked for went involved three basics:

Low tax liabilities
Low regulation
Reasonable revenue

At this point in my life, I simply do not place money at risk when the tax obligation is over 20%.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 12:47:26 PM

"And as history has shown during the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush administrations: decreasing tax rates did increase tax revenue."

So you really didn't read what was linked?
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 12:36:08 PM

"Spending cuts in conjunction with an increase in revenue is the only way to get out of the incredibly deep hole that has been dug by both parties. "

And as history has shown during the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush administrations: decreasing tax rates did increase tax revenue.

As far as digging holes, lets keep things in perspective. The current occupant of the white house has piled up more debt than any president in US history, if not all presidents combined. And that's with increasing tax rates and revenues.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 12:21:01 PM

"That's just what I said. The more money the US Treasury takes in, the more congress will spend. Congress is out of control."

If you would have read what was linked, you would have seen that spending is not tied to revenue. It is being spent either way, but with lowered income the hole is simply that much deeper.

You can't simply cut your way to a balanced budget. Many of our schools here in OH are microcosms of this very problem. With revenue flat over the past decade, no amount of cutting has been able to keep their budgets in the black despite significant negative impacts to the kids...

Spending cuts in conjunction with an increase in revenue is the only way to get out of the incredibly deep hole that has been dug by both parties.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 12:13:44 PM

Weaslespit, your article, repeatedly, goes through the coulda, shoulda, woulda scenarios. But, what really happened, the Reagan tax cuts, the continuation of relatively low rates in the 1990s, and the Bush tax cuts produced increased Treasury revenues.

That article you linked to is like saying: If we just get rid of cars in the US the earth will cool. Its baseless and contrary to what happened.

"I'm not sure if you are aware but income is very much a direct influence of the budget. "

That's just what I said. The more money the US Treasury takes in, the more congress will spend. Congress is out of control.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 11:38:59 AM

"There really is no relationship between tax rates and government spending, other than more money into the treasury means more money to spend."

The evidence has been posted many times past to show the relevance of how cutting taxes is a fool's errand - I'm not sure if you are aware but income is very much a direct influence of the budget.

Please read.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 14, 2015 11:30:10 AM

"Indeed it is. The deficit grew and the economy tanked.... "

There really is no relationship between tax rates and government spending, other than more money into the treasury means more money to spend.

Using your "logic", Bush cut taxes resulting in only $150 billion of deficit spending during his last year. Therefor, when Barack Obama increased tax rates, that caused deficits of $1.5 trillion. An absurd example. But, that is what your are implying.

The economy tanked, by the way, because people did not pay back loans. Under rules established by congress (a Democratic House and Senate), banks folded and no money was available for inflated housing. That, also, had nothing to do with tax rates.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2015 3:31:58 PM

"Well, weaslespit, either tax revenue increased after the tax cuts or it didn't. Either unemployment decreased or it didn't. Either the economy grew in the previous decade or it didn't. The history is indisputable."

Indeed it is. The deficit grew and the economy tanked....
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,548
Points:478,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2015 3:25:25 PM

Obama and his subservience to Wall Street is only part of the equation.

The super-rich power junkies use all of our squabbling to their advantage, hedging their bets so no matter which side prevails they profit. Then they laugh all the way to the bank.

If only the majority of the American public would realize that the biggest battle is not liberals against conservatives but the 99.9% against the .1%...
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:26,272
Points:2,652,140
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2015 1:39:52 PM

"Tax em to pay for the inequality they have foisted upon the economy."

I don't think taxing Obama would solve the issue all that much SemiSteve...
Post a reply Back to Topics