Politics

[GoIrish41]

Using this as a scenario, what would be fair?

I think a progressive income tax by which the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor. It is our current system of taxation and it came to be because many, many lawmakers in the past agreed that it would be fair.

 

[GoIrish41]

We had a recession because the housing bubble popped.

The housing bubble was created by government backed loans.

Those loans were made to people who should never had gotten them.

Banks made the high-risk, high-reward loans because the risk was taken out of the equation by the government backing them.

so in the link that I sent you, was Bernanke just lying when he said that lack of regulation played a role? or was he just not as versed as you on economic theory, having not been in college economic classes for many years?

 

[Ndaccountant]

I think a progressive income tax by which the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor. It is our current system of taxation and it came to be because many, many lawmakers in the past agreed that it would be fair.

Progressive to what extent tho. That is the real question. What should be that top bracket?

 

[Ndaccountant]

so in the link that I sent you, was Bernanke just lying when he said that lack of regulation played a role? or was he just not as versed as you on economic theory, having not been in college economic classes for many years?

Loans created the mess, but the death nail was the unregulated derivitive market. But we didn't need the whole Dodd Frank fiasco to fix the root of the problem, which was IMO lack of a clearingouse platform for derivitives.

 

[GoIrish41]

Progressive to what extent tho. That is the real question. What should be that top bracket?

I don't know, but returning to the Clinton tax rates for the wealthy was a good start. However, the economy is a team sport and there are plenty of us who should also be taxed to reduce the deficit. It is difficult for me to justify taxing the poor because, well, they are poor. But, maybe the Clinton rates being applied to everyone who makes 100K or more. I'm certainly not an exppert on tax rates, but fair is fair.

 

[GoIrish41]

Loans created the mess, but the death nail was the unregulated derivitive market. But we didn't need the whole Dodd Frank fiasco to fix the root of the problem, which was IMO lack of a clearingouse platform for derivitives.

this is what I was getting at when I said that lack of regulation contributed to the problem. Not sure why people jumped on me for it, but whatever.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Greatest part of Dodd-Frank? 50% of it hasn't even been written yet.


Raise taxes on those making $100k or more? smh

 

[GoIrish41]

Greatest part of Dodd-Frank? 50% of it hasn't even been written yet.


Raise taxes on those making $100k or more? smh

why? everyone should pay their fair share. I'm not just after rich people to pay everything. I'm willing to pay too.

 

[chicago51]

Don't assume all business owners are billionairea. The vaaaaaast majority are struggling upper middle class folk trying to get by and also employing people.


True, but bringing prices down also creates more demand. The smartphone I'm using (Droid RAZR) costs $1 now, anyone can buy it. That created demand.

Once again, see the whole picture.

I get it. I understand that $250,000 in income is very different than making $250,000 owning your own business. I don't want to simply raise the top end tax rate. I want to change what the top end tax rate is. Make new brackets 41% for over 1.5 million and 49% for over a billion. Keep the current top rate of 39.6% percent for those in the 400k to 1.5 million range.

If anything upper middle class small business owners deserve tax credits because they typically only employee American workers (and occassionally some illegals). A tax system should be American worker friendly right now it is not.

 

[Downinthebend]

I'm looking forward to the State of the Union tonight. The President will give his speech then the Republicans will make @ssclowns of themselves for days afterwards. It makes me laugh and at the same time it makes me a little sad that I was once part of that circus sideshow called the Republican party. Under the big top tonight, King of the Clowns, Mr. Ted Nugent .

Why should I watch some speech-maker bullshit about caring about people? He doesn't live by his word, why should I read or listen to his words? The irony of someone claiming that he can murder american citizens for pretty much any reason also trying to take away people's self defense seems too absurd to be true.

Oh, none of this is to mention that he has killed American citizens before, and thats not even counting untold amounts of innocent non-civilians. He doesn't give two shits about the children we kill in other countries?

Honestly, how does he sleep at night?

I think a progressive income tax by which the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor. It is our current system of taxation and it came to be because many, many lawmakers in the past agreed that it would be fair.

I think a progressive tax system (I'm defining that as the people with more-- bearing more of the load) is a great idea. I'm just opposed to anyone having to pay taxes toward unconstitutional purposes.

 

[chicago51]

I'm looking forward to the State of the Union tonight. The President will give his speech then the Republicans will make @ssclowns of themselves for days afterwards. It makes me laugh and at the same time it makes me a little sad that I was once part of that circus sideshow called the Republican party. Under the big top tonight, King of the Clowns, Mr. Ted Nugent .

Ted Nugent is a side show to try to distract people from the issues.

Anyway, I am looking forward to the republican response. No pressure but Marco Rubio's 2016 presidential campaign is on the line. The republican responses in recent years have not been epic to say the least.

Then there is the tea party response to the republican response. So tea party who is part of the republican party is giving a response to its own party's response. Rubio himself is a tea party member. Yet Rubio is giving the Republican response. Rand Paul will be giving the tea party response. I have to use italics with Rand because I just can't take him seriously. Anyway Rand Paul will give the third anual tea party response following in the likes of Michelle Bauchman and Herman Cain.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Why even tax income at all? You tax things you want less of. Tax consumption, dammit.

 

[DSully1995]

I just wanna say as a canadian obama better approve keystone XL soon, draggin on forever

 

[chicago51]

Why even tax income at all? You tax things you want less of. Tax consumption, dammit.

Louisania Governor Bobby Jindal has lowered his state income tax and raised the heck out of sales taxes. It has made the richer and poorer.

That said I think we need to look some now income sources of income. Here is a few on my wish list.

Carbon Tax: Make non oil combustion sources of energy more cost effective. Save our planet in the process.

Value Added Tax on imports: Make stuff from China more expensive so we sell more American goods.

Wall Street Transaction Tax: A 0.01% (yes 1 percent of 1 percent) tax on wall street transaction is would raise an estimated $300 billion in 10 years. It would also prevent crazy specalation when people buy and sell rapidly to try to manipulate the process. If they have to pay for it there will be less manipulation of the system. A 1 cent tax per $100 should not discourage people from investing either.

 

[chicago51]

For those who want spending cuts I have to ask. What would you cut?

We need about anwhere from 1.5-1.8 trillion more debt reduction over 10 years to stabalize the debt to GDP ratio.

I myself do want sensible military cuts that won't hurt the defense of the United States or our allies. Rather I want our military to be a bit more efficent in its use of resources. You can't balance the whole budget or event get to the number both parties agree we need to get to which was 4 trillion over a 10 year period that we are still 1.5 to 1.8 trillion short of.

 

[GoIrish41]

Ted Nugent is a side show to try to distract people from the issues.

Anyone I am looking forward to the republican response. No pressure but Marco Rubio's 2016 presidential campaign is on the line. The republican responses in recent years have not been epic to say the least.

Then there is the tea party response to the republican response. So tea party who is part of the republican party is giving a response to its own party's response. Rubio himself is a tea party member. Yet Rubio is giving the Republican response. Rand Paul will be giving the tea party response. I have to use italics with Rand because I just can't take him seriously. Anyway Rand Paul will give the third anual tea party response following in the likes of Michelle Bauchman and Herman Cain.

When I think of cohesive political parties, the first thing that comes to mind is multiple rebuttles to the state of the union.

 

[GoIrish41]

Why even tax income at all? You tax things you want less of. Tax consumption, dammit.

Do we want less consumption? lol

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I just wanna say as a canadian obama better approve keystone XL soon, draggin on forever

I think the other option for Canada is just selling the oil to China. America loses much more than Canada does in this farce.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Why even tax income at all? You tax things you want less of. Tax consumption, dammit.

I used to be in favor of this, until I took one land use class and found out that that sort of switch would be devastating for this country.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I don't know, but returning to the Clinton tax rates for the wealthy was a good start. However, the economy is a team sport and there are plenty of us who should also be taxed to reduce the deficit. It is difficult for me to justify taxing the poor because, well, they are poor. But, maybe the Clinton rates being applied to everyone who makes 100K or more. I'm certainly not an exppert on tax rates, but fair is fair.

I can appreciate the mind set of fair. However, nobody had drawn the line as to what fair exactly is. And, I don't think that is an oversight either.

 

[GoIrish41]

I can appreciate the mind set of fair. However, nobody had drawn the line as to what fair exactly is. And, I don't think that is an oversight either.

If I were the arbitor of what fair is, I'd just restore the Clinton tax rates for everyone who makes $100K or more, and close the loopholes that people and corporations use to avoid paying taxes. In my mind, that is fair. I know there are a lot of folks on here who will have a different idea of where "fair" is but, hey, I got dibbs on that arbitor thing.

 

[DSully1995]

I think the other option for Canada is just selling the oil to China. America loses much more than Canada does in this farce.

I still think both will come to happen to a certain extent, but always rather sell to US

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If I were the arbitor of what fair is, I'd just restore the Clinton tax rates for everyone who makes $100K or more, and close the loopholes that people and corporations use to avoid paying taxes. In my mind, that is fair. I know there are a lot of folks on here who will have a different idea of where "fair" is but, hey, I got dibbs on that arbitor thing.

That's interesting. $100k sure as hell isn't what it was in the early to mid 90s.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's interesting. $100k sure as hell isn't what it was in the early to mid 90s.

People are still doing OK if they are making 100K. That seems like a fair place to set the mark for people's rates to return to what they were in the Clinton years. At least it seems reasonable to me. My taxes would go up and I'd be all for it.

 

[chicago51]

I can appreciate the mind set of fair. However, nobody had drawn the line as to what fair exactly is. And, I don't think that is an oversight either.

I say Obama rates up to 1.5 million. So 400k to 1.5 million pay the Clinton rate of 39.6 percent.

After 1.5 million I propose a 41 percent rate. After a billion a 43 percent rate.

You can say my idea is unfair to billionaires. Perhaps it is. That being said I am down from 49 percent rate I had suggested and it is still way less than every president from FDR to Carter and the country functioned and had low debt.

 

[GoIrish41]

I say Obama rates up to 1.5 million. So 400k to 1.5 million pay the Clinton rate of 39.6 percent.

After 1.5 million I propose a 41 percent rate. After a billion a 43 percent rate.

You can say my idea is unfair to billionaires. Perhaps it is. That being said I am down from 49 percent rate I had suggested and it is still way less than every president from FDR to Carter and the country functioned and had low debt.

anyone making a billion dollars a year can afford to pay 43% and not even miss it. fvck em.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I used to be in favor of this, until I took one land use class and found out that that sort of switch would be devastating for this country.

I've taken lots of land use classes. So trust me on this one.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

anyone making a billion dollars a year can afford to pay 43% and not even miss it. fvck em.

Therrrrrre we go, the new left reveals itself in one sentence. Demonize and damn those who are successful. They don't deserve it. We'll show them what they get for making that kind of money. So much for all that tolerance and understanding...

Modern dems used to call millionaires and billionaires rich. Then it was anyone who made $400k or more, then it was $250k or more, now you say it's $100k or more. On this progression in a few short years, "rich" is a salary of $60k according to you lol

All day I've quoted the words "rich" and "fair" because progressives either a) can't define either or b) change their minds too quickly

 

[GowerND11]

lets use your 10% example.

A father of two who works as a factory brings home, lets say $1000 every two weeks, and he pays $100 to the federal government leaving him $900 to pay his rent, bills, car payment and put food on the table. He certainly can't afford to put braces on his daughter's teeth or even go out to dinner with his family. He is the representation of the working poor.

His employer, who is also a father of two is the CEO of the conclomerate that owns the roofing company that the employee works for. The CEO makes, lets say, $200,000 every two weeks (just pulling this number out of my a**) and pays $20,000 in taxes, leaving him with $180,000 to pay his expenses.

Do you think that is equal? The employee labors away to line the pockets of the CEO and doesn't have two dimes to rub together, while the CEO makes more than he can ever spend. I'd say it is not equal at all.

I've been busy and didn't get a chance to answer this. Yes that is equal. They are both paying an equal percentage of their income to the government. Just because you are rich shouldn't mean you should pay more percentage to the government. As I mentioned we are all equal under the law, but when it comes to taxing the rich should be punished more? That's crap. So what if some man/woman makes $200,000 per pay check. Good for them! Don't blame that person because another is working in the factory. They didn't force the factory worker into a life of "poor."

I also want to make it known I am a substitute teacher making $75 a day because I can't find a full time teaching job for the time being. My parents never went to college. My dad has worked in the factory for 30 years, and my mom has spent my life at various jobs, supermarket, Kraft food rep, stay at home mom, store manager, unemployed, etc. I don't come from a rich family. I just believe we there should be an equal tax plan, or if possible abolish income tax (though, as others have said, would be quite hard to accomplish)

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Even if you did get your wish and had absurd tax rates on the "rich" (throw out whatever % you want, hell how about 75), it still wouldn't fix our spending problems. So while punishing the man might make you feel good, still doesn't do the country any good.

Medicare, medicaid, social security would still all be broke by 2030. And then there's obamacare...$hit.