The Fiscal Cliff: Will House Republicans cave on taxes? Will anyone actually cut spending? Have... - Page 5

I said, if you can find other billionaires besides trump and Romney who oppose the tax reversion on the top 2% then please share.

Obviously, the defense contractor chiefs are staunch republicans (or likely to be).

Why don't you point out some democrat billionaires who oppose the tax reversion on the top 2%

 

Oh gee...a Huffpo article that supports your position.  How surprising.  If you'd like, I can start posting Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity show segments to support mine.  No?  :) 

 

 

Yes, let's have a urination contest.  Meaningless.  

 

 

1. Romney is not a billionaire.  

 

2. Billionaires are not in the top 2%  They are in the top ,1%.   Don't lump people making $250,000 a year and small businesses in with millionaires and billionaires.  

 

 

Really, tonton..you're just playing games now.  You know the math doesn't work.  You cannot tax "rich" people enough to close our deficit.  You could take 100% of their wealth, and it would still leave us with a $500 billion deficit.  I also think you can read, so I'm sure you understand the impact that rate increases can have on small S-corp businesses.   You've still avoided the topic, of course.  The silence is quite telling.  

The Fantasy of the 91% Tax Rate

 

 

 

 

 

"You cannot tax "rich" people enough to close our deficit."

 

You cannot reform Medicare and close our deficit.

 

You cannot cut taxes (magically increasing revenue?) and close our deficit.

 

You cannot privatize FEMA and close our deficit.

 

You cannot cut military funding and close our deficit.

 

You cannot cut welfare and close our deficit.

 

You cannot add the poorest people to the (income) tax rolls (they actually already are on the tax rolls if they're employed at all, since they're paying payroll tax) and close our deficit.

 

You cannot... and close our deficit.

 

 

 

See how easy that was?

 

According to your logic, since no single one of those things can close the deficit, we shouldn't do any one of them.

How about this? How about Republicans vow never to pass a bill with tax cuts that are set to expire after a certain period, and then dishonestly call that expiry a tax increase when the time comes? If you wanna pass tax cuts, make them permanent, or stop the lies about expiry being an increase.

 

Yup.  

 

 

 

On its own?  No.  But it helps as it's a major driver. 

 

 

 

 

Done the right way, it will lead to more growth and thereby revenue.  Growth is the answer.  We know this because it's worked before.  

 

 

 

 

True.  I don't think anyone is arguing for doing that, are they?  Sending it back to the states is not the same as privatizing it.  

 

 

 

 

I don't support doing that, but it would help.  

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you can.  

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that will increase revenue (despite your framing of the issue as "the poorest people.")  

 

 

 

 

Those weren't my words, nor my logic.  I merely stated that confiscating even 100% of the rich's wealth doesn't even get us close.  What the President has proposed is not the "balanced approach" he advocated.  He proposed ZERO spending cuts and $50 billion in new spending.  He also wants to raises taxes on the rich to "reduce the deficit."  But it doesn't...certainly not on its own.  And it has unintended consequences (but not unforeseeable ones).  So why do it?  

 

The answer is not one you like to admit.  You know the math doesn't work, but you support higher taxes on the rich anyway.  Why?  To make the system "more fair."  To pursue more equality of outcome.  

Does reinstating tax rates close the deficit?

 

"On its own?  No.  But it helps as it's a major driver."

 

Reinstating tax income that was passed with the promise that it would expire won't close the deficit, but it will help. It is also the opinion of the majority of Americans that this should be done, and if it is done, it can add to consumer confidence among those Americans, which will help more. If tax cuts for the rich aren't allowed to expire as they were promised to do, then the country will remain in a consumer depression among the middle and lower class. If Medicare or welfare are cut then the country will remain in a consumer depression among the middle and lower class. If military is cut than nobody will change their spending except maybe the ultra-paranoid gripped-by-fear Muslim haters.

 

A lot of what drives the economy is perception. And the perception among most Americans is that restoring tax rates for the top 2% will help. Even among those in the top 2% themselves:

 

Again:

 

“In the near term, [income tax rates] need to go up some,” Langstaff said. "This is a fairness issue -- there needs to be recognition that we’re not collecting enough revenue. In the last decade we’ve fought two wars without raising taxes. So I think it does need to go up.”

 

Notice that quote doesn't say that restoring tax rates on the rich will close the deficit. Nor is that what I'm saying. But it will help.

And what you're saying is your speculation. But 30 years of failed Reaganomic policy says your way doesn't work in the long run.

The Republicans are a bunch of obstinate in considerate jerks who always want their own way regarding the people who do not need to raise the taxes over 2200 a year for a family.They could care less.
 

 

Barely, and that's assuming 1) We get the revenue predicted (usually not, historically) and 2) It doesn't slow the economy and cost jobs (likely at least to some degree).  

 

 

 

1)  That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.  Of course it's popular.  What answer do you think you're going to get when you ask "Do you want to raise taxes on rich people?"  The people that answer yes are either misinformed, ignorant on this issue (for whatever reason), or are having the wool pulled over their eyes.  

 

2) How the hell can it add to consumer confidence?  

 

 

First, they weren't "promised to expire."  They were scheduled to expire.  Bush took a 10 year time limit for the full cut he wanted instead of halving the amount of the cut (it's called negotiation...something Obama might want to study).  Secondly, how can you honestly claim that "the rich" keeping more of their money will cause a depression for the lower and middle classes?  That's just...bizarre.  

 

 

Prove that.  Provide at least some evidence for that statement, and/or explain in detail why that would occur.  Don't you think it matters how they are cut?  Are you claiming we can never cut those programs and reform them?  

 

 

 

Have you been drinking?  Tell me, how can the Left claim that the military-industrial complex is 50% of our economy, and then in the same breath, say that nothing will change if the military budget is cut?  I mean, talk about your cognitive dissonance.  And your comment about "Muslim haters" is just uncalled for.  

 

 

 

The first part is true.  I don't know if the second part is true even on the surface.  Help what?  Most people have been told raising taxes will reduce the deficit.  Those who don't know the math might believe that.  But you're saying that after not being interested enough (or smart enough, or lied to), they then make the leap that reducing the deficit will help the economy, and then their confidence will increased as a result?  That sounds pretty fantastical to me.  The only thing that will affect confidence is certainty about their tax rates.  

 

 

 

 

1.  A fairness issue?  How is it a fairness issue?  It's only one if you accept the false premise that the rich aren't paying their "fair share."  

 

2.  There is a good argument that we are collecting plenty of revenue, but that we spend too much.  

 

3.  If you reject #2, then the question is how to get more revenue.  Taxing the so-called "rich" is the worse and least effective way to do that.  The answer is economic growth.  We need total tax reform as a result...to unleash the economy and create jobs.  

 

4.  LOL.  But that's the argument your President has been using for months.  It's a LIE.  

 

However if you don't accept the obvious idea that one class can deal with higher taxes ( as they once did about 12 years ago ) much easier than another you're ignoring the obvious. Those people live totally different lives than the bulk of what makes up the middle class or the poor. And once again trickle down economics hasn't stood the test of time. And guess what? In that period of time we're talking about things were going better for everyone so keeping taxes lower for the rich doesn't seem to help. That's been the case for over a decade now and look at the state of things ( and yes I'm talking about a longer period before Obama so really don't harp on that  ). You can can call it whatever you want but your argument doesn't hold water.

Edited by jimmac - 1/2/13 at 11:06am

If it did we'd have been in a lot better shape awhile ago wouldn't we? Taxes have been lower for the rich for some time now and things really don't seem rosier. You of course can try to blame that on Obama but we were in this state before he took office. So once again the argument holds water like a sieve.

Well this is really serious business and the GOP is being very illogical about the whole thing. No one is going to be asking those kinds of questions the day after we go over the cliff I assure you. They'll be wanting a fix quickly to stop their supporters from being so angry.

No, don't you see?  If the banks were more free, they wouldn't have acted irresponsibly.  They just weren't free enough to put the country ahead of their own greed.

 From everything I've heard about what got us into this debacle freedom wasn't an issue. One comment in particular discribing lending institutions of the period always sticks in my mind. " It was like the wild west ".

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9626442/Greg-Smith-Goldman-Sachs-London-office-was-like-the-Wild-West.html

No, but don't you see?  The Wild West wasn't free enough.  Your greatest fallacy is that you won't allow for the possibility that there is a level of freedom past which corporations will stop being socially irresponsible and will usher in a new dawn of Utopian Jesayn Chrandianity. 

Regardless of what you think about rich vs poor, doesn't it occur to people that when a government is measuring it's budget in trillions that it's all got a bit ridiculous and out of control?

What's even more interesting is how it got that way.

 

Go ahead, jimmac.  Just keep thinking that higher tax rates only affect millionaires and billionaires.  Really, this entire argument is just so stupid.  Not even Obama and the Dems believe taxing the wealthy more will make any real difference in our fiscal situation.  

Well when it doesn't work the problem will be because taxes weren't high enough.

So, the House has passed "the" bill.   While I'm happy that I personally won't have to pay thousands more in taxes, I also don't know that I could have supported this bill if I had a vote.  It does nothing to contain spending, and in fact contains new spending.   Watching some of the pressers yesterday, I thought to myself "these people are ALL completely full of crap.  They created this entire situation, and are now on TV pontificating about how they are going to 'fix' it.  This entire thing is nothing more than political posturing...it's all pure garbage." 

 

My feelings extend towards both parties. The Dems are clearly out to sadistically torture the GOP by making them vote for higher taxes.  They lack ANY credibility on spending, especially in the Senate, where there has been no budget passed in nearly four years.  They also know that the tax increases in the bill solve nothing. It's all about continuing to carve up the electorate and get Pelosi and Hoyer on TV to make their case to return to power in two years.  

 

And Team Boehner?  They negotiated from a position of weakness and fear instead of on what they felt was right.  They were too worried about the political consequences of taxes going up, not wanting to be blamed if we went over the so-called "fiscal cliff."   What they should have done is had the balls to go in front of the American people and explain why they couldn't vote for this turd of a bill.  They should have explained that while they despised higher taxes on working families, they couldn't vote for a bill that actually increases the deficit and decreases economic growth because to do so would be bad for the country.  They then should have stated that if people held them responsible, so be it.  Had they done that, we'd have at least a palatable deal within a week.  Obama would cave on spending cuts and could probably even be persuaded to exempt small business from the new rates.   

 

Regardless, I'm beginning to see it's all nothing more than political theater.  Both parties are morally and ideologically corrupt, concerned only about their own power. Now, on to the next manufactured crisis to drive up cable TV ratings:  The debt ceiling.    

You seem to support the idea of trickle down economics by saying this. If that was any good at all it should have been obvious by now. Instead things are worse than ever for the middle class and poor. And guess what the taxes for the rich were when things were going better? Trickle down is a fallacy. Contrary to what your signature says you know nothing SDW.  Your ideas don't hold water.

Edited by jimmac - 1/2/13 at 11:07am

 

Your interpretation and inferences are not my problem.   

 

 

 

Well, your entire point is predicated on something I didn't say, but I'll put that little problem aside.   Let's address so-called "trickle-down" economics and their effects.   Here is a good place to start:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

 

 

 

 

Yes, you read that right,  jimmac. It's a pejorative coined not by a politician or economist, but a humorist.   And then there is this:    

 

 

 

So to start, I reject the notion that somehow supporting low tax rates in general makes me a proponent of "trickle down" economics.  In fact, one can argue that "trickle down" has never really been enacted at all.  Even the Reagan tax cuts did not cut taxes exclusively for the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class.  And the Bush tax cuts actually raised the share the wealthy pay in terms of the total tax bill.   More on this:  

 

 

 

Now, if you'd like to discuss what I actually wrote, that's fine.  I said that the tax increases on the so-called rich didn't solve the problem, and the Democrats knew it.  I stand by this statement.  By their own math, these increases will only bring in $40--60 Billion a year.  Combined with what appears to be zero spending cuts (at least for now), one has to ask:  Why raise taxes on these people?  It's a useless policy to pursue, and may even slow economic growth.   What is your answer to that?  

 

Finally, as to economic theories and such, you made this statement:  

 

 

 

 

I can only assume that you are referring to policies like the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.   The fact is that the evidence shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.  After the Reagan cuts, the economy recovered from a near depression within three years.  Growth exploded, and millions of new middle class jobs were created.  Revenue went up an inflation adjusted 20%-25% over Reagan's presidency.  President Bush entered office with less severe recession, and enacted much more modest cuts.  The result was again a relatively quick turnaround in growth, unemployment and thereby government revenue.  In fact, revenue to the federal government hit a record level in 2007.  

 

So assuming you are referring to above policies as "trickle down," I'm afraid you're wrong.  Those policies were quite effective in terms of creating growth and revenue to the government.  The spending side is, of course, a separate matter.  Both Presidents presided over massive increases in spending (some justified in my opinion, some not) that outstripped the increased revenue.   Congress (Republican and Democrat) shares most of the blame there.  Either way, it doesn't change the fact that across the board tax cuts stimulate the economy.   

Ah! The old long convoluted response basically saying nothing new.

 

 

 

Followed by just a year later with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

 

 

 

In other news :

 

 

 

 

They need to drop the Tea party types completely or they'll have no political future.

 

I'm sure you're stil in complete denial about all of this as the GOP ship sinks slowly in the west ( blub, blub! ) but that won't change the reality.

Edited by jimmac - 1/2/13 at 2:15pm

Two questions, jimmac:  

 

1)  What is trickle down economics (in your opinion)?  

 

2)  What policies did the Bush administration enact that led to the 2008 economic downturn?  

Spare us the semantics. What has been disproven is the theory that putting more financial resources into the hands of the wealthy benefits the non-wealthy more than putting the same financial resources directly in the hands of the non wealthy.

In fact, we see that in the last 30 years that taxes have been cut more in terms of percentage for the wealthy than they have been for the non-wealthy (by mean income percentile as a better measurement -- NOT by median, as the median and mean are drifting further and further apart -- a lower percentage of people are living over the mean than ever before, as a select few of the wealthy are amassing most of the wealth while everyone else's wealth is decreasing in comparison source).

In those same thirty years, the middle and lower class have not benefitted as much as the wealthy have.

The idea supporters of top-down economics seem to have is that the wealthy are there for a reason. Smarter, more creative, more hardworking, more productive, etc., so they will be more efficient at producing more wealth. Although this is not always the case, I'll admit that it's probably true in general.

But the factor that is ignored is that the wealthy do NOT like to produce wealth that benefits others. It's the greed factor. Faced with a profit, instead of building more businesses in the US where US workers can benefit, businesses are increasingly building business overseas, where further profit goes straight into the hands of the business owners, upper management, and investors -- not into the hands of the workers. Instead of giving raises to frontline workers, BoDs are giving massive raises to CEOs, cutting wages and benefits as much as is legal for their labor force, which in times of unemployment, has become highly replaceable.

At the same time, we're seeing more and more of the wealthy hoarding their wealth, either in luxury goods or properties, or even worse, by stashing their profits in places like the Caymans. This is the profit that SHOULD be being used to create more jobs or increase wages and benefits for existing workers. Instead it's being sheltered, which helps no one except perhaps the eventual heirs to the fortunes. Heirs who will continue the same hoarding as their predecessors.

Anyway, whatever you want to call it, putting more money in the hands of the wealthy has not helped. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer more than ever before.

An easy solution might be to tie a minimum wage to per capita GDP. That way, as wealth increases, businesses are forced to distribute that wealth fairly across the economic spectrum. Then this type of economics (whatever it's called) might just work.
Edited by tonton - 1/3/13 at 1:25am

 

 

Spoken like the true socialist you are.  To you, all money belongs to the government, only being returned to people as as it sees fit.  In reality, the opposite is true.  Supporters of low tax rates want the government to confiscate as little as possible.  

 

 

 

That is a dubious statistic, because it simply doesn't tell the whole story.  The lower brackets don't pay anywhere near as much to begin with, no they naturally won't see the same level of cuts.  This is the same argument presented by Dems like Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt during the debate on the Bush cuts.  They argued that if you were rich, you'd be able to buy a new Lexus with your tax cut, whereas you could only afford a new muffler if one was were middle class or lower.  Well, duh.  That wealthy person pays 10x the taxes at a much higher rate.   Tax relief goes to those who pay taxes.  

 

 

 

That depends what you mean by "benefit."  I argue that the middle class benefits from the rising tide, as they did in 1980s and 2000s.   The health of the economy is paramount.  

 

 

A fundamental misunderstanding of how business and the economy itself works. It's not a question of "liking" to produce wealth that benefits others.  It's a question of economic activity.  The rich person who buys a yacht needs to have it built.  The builder needs workers.  The workers need materials.  The materials need to be shipped.  The shipping company needs drivers, and mechanics.  The mechanics need computers.  It goes on and on.  Now, this is not an argument to avoid all taxation or have a regressive tax, but it does show that the wealthy do benefit the economy.  

 

 

They will always pay as little as possible for labor.  That is the nature of business.  What you fail to understand is that the government encourages them to pay less and hire less with all of the expensive mandates in place.  Rising minimum wage=fewer jobs.  Obamacare=fewer jobs.   Higher taxes on the upper brackets=fewer jobs.  

 

 

You'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that the wealthy hoard their wealth anymore than they did in the past.  

 

 

Who are you to tell people what they should be doing with their money?  Unless they've stolen it or they are truly ill-gotten gains, that's their business.  People like you are exactly the problem.  People like you are in government, telling people what they have to buy, have to pay and have to do.   It doesn't work.  

.

 

 

I reject, again, the phrasing of that.  No one is "putting more wealth in the hands of the wealthy."  What the Reagan tax cuts (for example) did was allow people to keep more of their own money.  The result was a massive expansion of economic activity and government revenue, which can be used to help people with less. 

 

 

 

Ah, "fairness."  Who gets to determine what's "fair?"   Hmmm?  The problem here is two-fold.  First, you are obsessed with equality of economic outcome.  But that is not what our system was founded upon.  It was founded upon equality of opportunity...upon a foundation that allowed each individual to pursue his own talents, gifts and desires.   Secondly, your statements continue to imply that "wealth" is somehow inherently the  property of all people on this planet (or in this case, this country)...as if there is some giant economic pie that we all have a right too.  This collectivism and secular humanism at its finest.  From these beliefs come your obsession with fairness and distribution of wealth, which both necessitate your grand schemes to redistribute that wealth.   Any such system will fail and lead to less prosperity, because it is corrupt at its core. 

1. The mistaken idea that if we keep overhead low ( taxes ) for the wealthy it will eventually make life less expensive for the rest of us.

 

Now you can say that's wrong but it's the aspect every conservative brings up everytime they try to defend this idea.

 

2. All of them. Little or no regulation of our financial institutions. Spending on unnescessary wars in a time of economic strife. Also keeping taxes low for the wealthy. Things were going much better when they weren't that way. Hence the proof that trickle down economics doesn't work.

 

 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/the-bush-recession-lets-c_b_167231.html

 

http://money.msn.com/mutual-fund/article.aspx?post=09d90714-2402-4772-a6c5-86d2af7ccaed

 

I'm sure you'll disagree but it really doesn't matter given the reality we're in. Spin won't help that.

Once again, SDW missed my point by concentrating on semantics and strawmen.

Yes. Once again.

 

When you don't have a real argument it's easier to look at things that way.

 

That's not what it is.  But thanks for your opinion.  

 

 

I assume then that you are arguing that higher taxes on the wealthy will create economic growth and prosperity?  

If less money were sequestered in offshore bank accounts and instead flowing through the economy, we would be better off.