|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 17, 2011 16:27:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 17, 2011 19:48:51 GMT -8
Believe it or not I support MOST of what the Tea Party represents, but I have a question: Why the resistance to "raise" the taxes on the exceedingly wealthy? (I put "raise" in quote marks because a return to the Clinton-era rates would hardly kill the Bushes, Kennedys, etc.) As a practical matter, I agree that it would be a move that would take us closer to deficit reduction. Ideologically, I am for some sort of flat tax for all. I would go for the "tax the rich" move on a temporary basis. This is not about the positions, but about the mob that is protesting the "Tea Party". |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 18, 2011 7:51:22 GMT -8
aztecwin is right, there were some rude comments there. However, the law of the land is that they are merely exercising freedom of speech. aztecwin, why do you hate the Constitution?
|
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Apr 18, 2011 8:49:05 GMT -8
The Tea Party is here to stay.
It's one thing to have freedom of speech, it's quite another to be civil about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 18, 2011 8:59:32 GMT -8
As far as raising taxes is concerned, here are some points to consider. - The really super rich always have ways to minimize their tax liabilities. I have heard (need to get documentation) that when the top marginal rate was about 91% during the '50s, virtually no one paid at that rate. The really rich always avoided paying that amount.
- Following on that thought, the super rich paid about 20% during the '50s and still pay about that much. Again, the tax code has been designed to allow folks, if they have enough money and the right accountant, to virtually never pay the top rate. Also, the present setup favors the old, established fortunes while at the same time making it much harder for younger, less affluent persons to build theirs.
- Another follow-on; why do we think that raising the top rates will bring in a flood of revenues?
- Yet another; the times when tax rates were lowered, under JFK, Reagan, and G.W. Bush, revenues to the Feds went up, not down.
- The problem is spending, not revenue. Government programs almost never go away (the postal savings account program was killed in the '60s; about the only program to die, to my knowledge). Govt. operations tend to be inefficient by nature (which is okay if one is talking about those core functions that everyone supports, such as law enforcement, courts, defense, etc.). Therefore, the more the govt. tries to do, the more money is wasted.
- No amount of tax increases likely to pass could come close to solving our national financial problems (confiscation of all net worth above, let's say, 100 million dollars - - - an amount that would be more than enough for ANYONE to live on comfortably - - - probably wouldn't be the answer and will never be tried because, among other reasons, there are too many super wealthy Democrats these days).
- Serious adjustments to "entitlements" (what a lousy term! where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that citizens are entitled to education, health care, and food?) must take place, but the Democrats' strategy has always been and (from what Obama said in his highly partisan speech last week) always will be to demagogue anyone who tries to make needed cuts in what the govt. promises to people. It takes guts to tell the people, "I'm sorry, but this can't go on; your government has made promises that make as little sense as claiming that water naturally runs up hill. You will have to do with less." Paul Ryan had the guts to do that. Barrack Obama, instead of making serious counter proposals, has taken the low road of attacking Ryan. But then, I guess Obama calculates, probably correctly, that the day when everything collapses and we end up like Greece (but with no country or group of countries capable or willing to bail us out) will occur some years after he has finished his second term.
Some years after, but not so many that even the older among us will not live to see that day. I can tell you this; if Barack Obama had used his speech to counter Ryan's proposal with an equally serious (and politically risky) one of his own, I would have applauded.
I'm not clapping.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 18, 2011 10:47:26 GMT -8
The Tea Party is here to stay. It's one thing to have freedom of speech, it's quite another to be civil about it. Civil about it? Nice thought. I wonder where the conservatives were when Congressional townhall meetings were repeatedly being disrupted and the speakers shouted down in the summer of 2009? Oh, I remember. They were the disrupters and shouters. What conservatives were complaining about lack of civility then? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 18, 2011 10:55:06 GMT -8
As far as raising taxes is concerned, here are some points to consider. - The really super rich always have ways to minimize their tax liabilities. I have heard (need to get documentation) that when the top marginal rate was about 91% during the '50s, virtually no one paid at that rate. The really rich always avoided paying that amount.
- Following on that thought, the super rich paid about 20% during the '50s and still pay about that much. Again, the tax code has been designed to allow folks, if they have enough money and the right accountant, to virtually never pay the top rate. Also, the present setup favors the old, established fortunes while at the same time making it much harder for younger, less affluent persons to build theirs.
- Another follow-on; why do we think that raising the top rates will bring in a flood of revenues?
- Yet another; the times when tax rates were lowered, under JFK, Reagan, and G.W. Bush, revenues to the Feds went up, not down.
- The problem is spending, not revenue. Government programs almost never go away (the postal savings account program was killed in the '60s; about the only program to die, to my knowledge). Govt. operations tend to be inefficient by nature (which is okay if one is talking about those core functions that everyone supports, such as law enforcement, courts, defense, etc.). Therefore, the more the govt. tries to do, the more money is wasted.
- No amount of tax increases likely to pass could come close to solving our national financial problems (confiscation of all net worth above, let's say, 100 million dollars - - - an amount that would be more than enough for ANYONE to live on comfortably - - - probably wouldn't be the answer and will never be tried because, among other reasons, there are too many super wealthy Democrats these days).
- Serious adjustments to "entitlements" (what a lousy term! where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that citizens are entitled to education, health care, and food?) must take place, but the Democrats' strategy has always been and (from what Obama said in his highly partisan speech last week) always will be to demagogue anyone who tries to make needed cuts in what the govt. promises to people. It takes guts to tell the people, "I'm sorry, but this can't go on; your government has made promises that make as little sense as claiming that water naturally runs up hill. You will have to do with less." Paul Ryan had the guts to do that. Barrack Obama, instead of making serious counter proposals, has taken the low road of attacking Ryan. But then, I guess Obama calculates, probably correctly, that the day when everything collapses and we end up like Greece (but with no country or group of countries capable or willing to bail us out) will occur some years after he has finished his second term.
Some years after, but not so many that even the older among us will not live to see that day. I can tell you this; if Barack Obama had used his speech to counter Ryan's proposal with an equally serious (and politically risky) one of his own, I would have applauded.
I'm not clapping.
AzWm
Once again Mr Opinion offers his, and then calls them facts. William care to prove any of your statements? You never have yet, so I expect not now. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 18, 2011 10:56:43 GMT -8
aztecwin is right, there were some rude comments there. However, the law of the land is that they are merely exercising freedom of speech. aztecwin, why do you hate the Constitution? I do not hate the Constitution. I love the idea that people have the right to expose themselves for what they are. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 18, 2011 11:09:20 GMT -8
The Tea Party is here to stay. It's one thing to have freedom of speech, it's quite another to be civil about it. Civil about it? Nice thought. I wonder where the conservatives were when Congressional townhall meetings were repeatedly being disrupted and the speakers shouted down in the summer of 2009? Oh, I remember. They were the disrupters and shouters. What conservatives were complaining about lack of civility then? You completely mis-characterize those Town-halls. The heartache was when mostly liberal politicians were forced to defend their irresponsible and unpopular votes. Questions from enthusiastic Tea Party Folks that were either not answered, answered with lies, or just simply run away from is hardly the same type actions that you see in this Utube video. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 18, 2011 11:16:07 GMT -8
As far as raising taxes is concerned, here are some points to consider. - The really super rich always have ways to minimize their tax liabilities. I have heard (need to get documentation) that when the top marginal rate was about 91% during the '50s, virtually no one paid at that rate. The really rich always avoided paying that amount.
- Following on that thought, the super rich paid about 20% during the '50s and still pay about that much. Again, the tax code has been designed to allow folks, if they have enough money and the right accountant, to virtually never pay the top rate. Also, the present setup favors the old, established fortunes while at the same time making it much harder for younger, less affluent persons to build theirs.
- Another follow-on; why do we think that raising the top rates will bring in a flood of revenues?
- Yet another; the times when tax rates were lowered, under JFK, Reagan, and G.W. Bush, revenues to the Feds went up, not down.
- The problem is spending, not revenue. Government programs almost never go away (the postal savings account program was killed in the '60s; about the only program to die, to my knowledge). Govt. operations tend to be inefficient by nature (which is okay if one is talking about those core functions that everyone supports, such as law enforcement, courts, defense, etc.). Therefore, the more the govt. tries to do, the more money is wasted.
- No amount of tax increases likely to pass could come close to solving our national financial problems (confiscation of all net worth above, let's say, 100 million dollars - - - an amount that would be more than enough for ANYONE to live on comfortably - - - probably wouldn't be the answer and will never be tried because, among other reasons, there are too many super wealthy Democrats these days).
- Serious adjustments to "entitlements" (what a lousy term! where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that citizens are entitled to education, health care, and food?) must take place, but the Democrats' strategy has always been and (from what Obama said in his highly partisan speech last week) always will be to demagogue anyone who tries to make needed cuts in what the govt. promises to people. It takes guts to tell the people, "I'm sorry, but this can't go on; your government has made promises that make as little sense as claiming that water naturally runs up hill. You will have to do with less." Paul Ryan had the guts to do that. Barrack Obama, instead of making serious counter proposals, has taken the low road of attacking Ryan. But then, I guess Obama calculates, probably correctly, that the day when everything collapses and we end up like Greece (but with no country or group of countries capable or willing to bail us out) will occur some years after he has finished his second term.
Some years after, but not so many that even the older among us will not live to see that day. I can tell you this; if Barack Obama had used his speech to counter Ryan's proposal with an equally serious (and politically risky) one of his own, I would have applauded.
I'm not clapping.
AzWm
This is a great well thought out post. Let me add that if we revise the tax code to just take away deductions and "loop-holes" without making the tax rate much flatter, people will simply move out of the Country. You see that now within the Country as folks move from New York and California to Texas and Florida over tax policy. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 18, 2011 12:09:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 18, 2011 12:24:07 GMT -8
Civil about it? Nice thought. I wonder where the conservatives were when Congressional townhall meetings were repeatedly being disrupted and the speakers shouted down in the summer of 2009? Oh, I remember. They were the disrupters and shouters. What conservatives were complaining about lack of civility then? You completely mis-characterize those Town-halls. The heartache was when mostly liberal politicians were forced to defend their irresponsible and unpopular votes. Questions from enthusiastic Tea Party Folks that were either not answered, answered with lies, or just simply run away from is hardly the same type actions that you see in this Utube video. I can't figure out if you are just unable to see the truth due to your reactionary politics, or just like to lie.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2011 15:11:16 GMT -8
Believe it or not I support MOST of what the Tea Party represents, but I have a question: Why the resistance to "raise" the taxes on the exceedingly wealthy? (I put "raise" in quote marks because a return to the Clinton-era rates would hardly kill the Bushes, Kennedys, etc.) Just to be clear on who you're trying to screw; you're talking about income tax rates. The exceedingly wealthy don't pay income taxes for the most part. What you're really advocating is increasing the tax on high wage earners. High wage earners are usually late career folks who have already raised their families and are looking at trying to build a nest egg for retirement. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 18, 2011 16:02:29 GMT -8
Believe it or not I support MOST of what the Tea Party represents, but I have a question: Why the resistance to "raise" the taxes on the exceedingly wealthy? (I put "raise" in quote marks because a return to the Clinton-era rates would hardly kill the Bushes, Kennedys, etc.) As a practical matter, I agree that it would be a move that would take us closer to deficit reduction. Ideologically, I am for some sort of flat tax for all. I would go for the "tax the rich" move on a temporary basis. This is not about the positions, but about the mob that is protesting the "Tea Party". As opposed to the teabagger from John Birch - oops, I mean Orange County who forwarded an email transposing Obama's face on a baby chimp? I don't agree with either - please offer the same. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 18, 2011 16:10:27 GMT -8
As a practical matter, I agree that it would be a move that would take us closer to deficit reduction. Ideologically, I am for some sort of flat tax for all. I would go for the "tax the rich" move on a temporary basis. This is not about the positions, but about the mob that is protesting the "Tea Party". As opposed to the teabagger from John Birch - oops, I mean Orange County who forwarded an email transposing Obama's face on a baby chimp? I don't agree with either - please offer the same. =Bob I did not get that email. Care to share? I will bet it was not sent by that chimps Mother.  I think that even some one of your ilk would see the difference in going after a public figure and going after a 14 year old girl. Guess not! Sad how liberals just don't have the capacity to get it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 18, 2011 17:00:12 GMT -8
As opposed to the teabagger from John Birch - oops, I mean Orange County who forwarded an email transposing Obama's face on a baby chimp? I don't agree with either - please offer the same. =Bob I did not get that email. Care to share? I will bet it was not sent by that chimps Mother. I think that even some one of your ilk would see the difference in going after a public figure and going after a 14 year old girl. Guess not! Sad how liberals just don't have the capacity to get it. Pathetic attempt at a troll. If you weren't spending happy hour time at the 19th hole, sucking up margaritas, you might be able to understand the reference. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Apr 18, 2011 19:20:12 GMT -8
As a practical matter, I agree that it would be a move that would take us closer to deficit reduction. Ideologically, I am for some sort of flat tax for all. I would go for the "tax the rich" move on a temporary basis. This is not about the positions, but about the mob that is protesting the "Tea Party". As opposed to the teabagger from John Birch - oops, I mean Orange County who forwarded an email transposing Obama's face on a baby chimp? I don't agree with either - please offer the same. =Bob They got that idea from you all lefties who repeatedly referrered to W. Bush as "chimp" often by the lefty psotters here in these forums, how short our memories are... Bottom line is to be factual and not characterize the target and the point is better made anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 19, 2011 10:15:36 GMT -8
This is a great well thought out post. Let me add that if we revise the tax code to just take away deductions and "loop-holes" without making the tax rate much flatter, people will simply move out of the Country. You see that now within the Country as folks move from New York and California to Texas and Florida over tax policy. Ron Paul offered an interesting thought on MSNBC yesterday - tax corporations that make most of their bucks off the government, such as the defense industry, pay a higher rate. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 19, 2011 10:19:37 GMT -8
As opposed to the teabagger from John Birch - oops, I mean Orange County who forwarded an email transposing Obama's face on a baby chimp? I don't agree with either - please offer the same. =Bob They got that idea from you all lefties who repeatedly referrered to W. Bush as "chimp" often by the lefty psotters here in these forums, how short our memories are... Bottom line is to be factual and not characterize the target and the point is better made anyway. There's an entirely different connotation to show an African-American as a chimp. The 2nd paragraph I completely agree with. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 19, 2011 10:24:57 GMT -8
Ron Paul offered an interesting thought on MSNBC yesterday - tax corporations that make most of their bucks off the government, such as the defense industry, pay a higher rate. =Bob That's not interesting, that's just stupid -- not surprising, given whose idea it was. Corporations don't pay taxes; they just pass them along to the consumers. So let's suppose that there is a $1 mil profit on a government contract and the federal income tax on that profit is $300,000 – netting a $700,000 after tax profit. And let’s suppose that we increase the tax to $400,000. The contractor, when bidding the contract, would just increase the cost of the bid by $100,000 so that they would have the tax money to give back to the government. It's not a question of "getting around the tax" -- it's a question of setting your bid at a level that is sufficient to cover your expenses and a reasonable profit. Taxes, be they large or small, are just an expense to be factored into the bid. Yoda out... |
|
