Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

Vapor said:

Where were you for the Bush tax cuts? The GOP's main argument was that it would help job creators, and repealing them would do the opposite. "Job creator" at this point is also a generic term for "rich guy." And let's not forget the billions of dollars in subsidies oil companies and other big businesses receive. I was involved with the Occupy movement for awhile, so I've heard most arguments about Wall Street and capital gains. Is it a problem? Yes, but its just one (major) face of a multi-faceted issue. Corporate executives benefit from investments and low capital gains taxes, too, but I'm more concerned with how employers' actions affect their employees, at this time. No one wants to believe the elite theory because it screams "conspiracy," so we do what we can. At this point, the best way to curb Wall Street's influence is by repealing Citizens United and reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act.

Click to expand...

I should have given the ONLY conservative thing that BushII ever did a pass (temporarily removing dividend tax), thanks for prompting me. Glass-Steagall needs to be completely re-written to cover the realities of today and given some serious teeth. THAT is the "conflict of interest" to which I was referring in this thread. You are preaching to the choir on that one.

Boo Radley said:

I know you think that was a profound comparison, but it wasn't. Business leap in with both feet and said please makes me rich.

Click to expand...

On the contrary - businesses were not given a choice, and generally loathed the Roosevelt administration, who had spent a decade accusing them of being the enemy of the nation. There were profits that came out of WWII, mostly because Roosevelt recognized that he had to drop the anti-business class warfare routine if he wanted an effective industrial base. The government absolutely seized control of the means of production. They simply did not seize ownership.

cpwill said:

On the contrary - businesses were not given a choice, and generally loathed the Roosevelt administration, who had spent a decade accusing them of being the enemy of the nation. There were profits that came out of WWII, mostly because Roosevelt recognized that he had to drop the anti-business class warfare routine if he wanted an effective industrial base. The government absolutely seized control of the means of production. They simply did not seize ownership.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that makes it socialism.

Sorry, but you guys are working way too hard.

Boo Radley said:

Yeah, that makes it socialism.

Click to expand...

It makes it corporatism, which is the economic model for national socialism.

cpwill said:

It makes it corporatism, which is the economic model for national socialism.

Click to expand...

No. It deals with a state of war, and after making folks rich, we back to essentially what it was.

Boo Radley said:

No. It deals with a state of war, and after making folks rich, we back to essentially what it was.

Click to expand...

and it dealt with that state of war through seizing control of the means of production. After the war we actually took it back to better than it was previously, as Truman was smart enough not to follow his predecessors' lead on having an explicitly anti-business posture and the notion that government spending = jobs.

Boo Radley said:

No. It deals with a state of war, and after making folks rich, we back to essentially what it was.

Click to expand...

Kinda like the peacetime profiteers, who make money of off government spending much in the same fashion. Only difference, is that the peacetime profiteers don't contribute jack**** to the country.

BTW, where do you work?

AS A REPUBLICAN I believe in a progressive tax. The logic is sound. Take some burden off the bottom and middle. Now. That isn't the part I disagree with. I disagree with the numbers ($250k as if that number is fantastically high).

. I also disagree with the constant attack on business. I don't hate it because I am rich. I am not. My father owns a business, my uncle, and my grandfather, and many friends. None of it is a "massive" corporation. Any time they get pressured to have their taxes raised...who do you think that impacts? The people who purchase their products. Seem unfair? Why should they raise their prices when the whole concept of tax the rich is to help the bottom?

Well you are expecting them to compromise their family security (future) . Ask yourself if you would honestly...do the same? Sure...not being in their shoes it is easy to say that. Now ask yourself what you would do if you made a high wage? You have mobility where many dont. If you can live with less burden financially and more security financially for your family...would you?

This whole concept of tax the rich ignores mobility and all kinds of important factors. I got an idea though. Close loopholes, cut waste/deadweight, and and encourage business growth.

stonewall50 said:

AS A REPUBLICAN I believe in a progressive tax. The logic is sound. Take some burden off the bottom and middle.

Click to expand...

the "logic" of "progressive" income tax is SOUND???? I guess Republicans are anything but conservatives!! It is both a penalty for success and part of a huge impediment to international competitiveness. To relieve the "bottom end" all you need is a significant basic personal exemption (even as a tax credit).

This whole concept of tax the rich ignores mobility and all kinds of important factors. I got an idea though. Close loopholes, cut waste/deadweight, and and encourage business growth.

Click to expand...

In the short term, closing the loopholes is a good start.

I believed for years in "one tax, flat tax" as ultimately fair, but the consumption tax crowd have convinced me that taxing income is very, very wrong today. Think of it this way: all of those German and Japanese cars, and the incredible pile of Chinese junk in virtually EVERY retail store get here without paying any of this US income tax - whereas our manufacturers must. Why not let the Chinese pay THEIR fair share to put our manufacturers on a level playing field? How, you ask? Simple: use consumption tax as THE basic form of revenue. Give the bottom end their little credit, but tax EVERYTHING - goods and services - enough to balance the budget and start to service the debt. That way, every Chinese, Korean, Japanese, European or Mexican product is paying the same tax load as every US product. And you get the tax load OFF of US producers and share it equally with everyone selling here. My only exception: keep a big, FAT capital gains tax in place.

Do that, and you end all of the "tax the rich" nonsense.

cpwill said:

and it dealt with that state of war through seizing control of the means of production. After the war we actually took it back to better than it was previously, as Truman was smart enough not to follow his predecessors' lead on having an explicitly anti-business posture and the notion that government spending = jobs.

Click to expand...

So much for creep.

CP, this just isn't going to fly in context of the conversation. We were socialist then nor now.

apdst said:

Kinda like the peacetime profiteers, who make money of off government spending much in the same fashion. Only difference, is that the peacetime profiteers don't contribute jack**** to the country.

BTW, where do you work?

Click to expand...

In Iowa for a Community College.

However, nothing you said above brings us to socialism.

Boo Radley said:

In Iowa for a Community College.

However, nothing you said above brings us to socialism.

Click to expand...

As I was saying...

apdst said:

As I was saying...

Click to expand...

. . . Nothing of consequence?

Boo Radley said:

So much for creep.

CP, this just isn't going to fly in context of the conversation. We were socialist then nor now.

Click to expand...

If you take three steps forward and then two back, you have still ratcheted net forward. Turtle is correct in his description of the legal changes of the era.

I couldn't answer the poll. The answer is YES. Why? It is their ****ing duty.

apdst said:

As I was saying...

Click to expand...

Apparently not much...

cpwill said:

If you take three steps forward and then two back, you have still ratcheted net forward. Turtle is correct in his description of the legal changes of the era.

Click to expand...

Like most, he overstates, describes a creep that really misses the issue. It is a long standing, unoriginal scare tactic that is largely laughable today and with the realities of the world we live in.

The approach is ALL wrong and that's why this gets so much blowback. This isn't a question of reasonable or unreasonable, right or wrong. It becomes a question of necessity and SHARED responsibility.

This tax season every poor and middle income individual will do the exact same thing every rich person will do. they will find every opportunity to keep what they have earned and in the case of the poor and lower middle income, will even claim the earned income credit to get free money they did not pay. Everyone wants to keep what they have earned. But because the rich have earned so much more, there is this continued movement to vilify the successful. And so it starts. instead of everyone accepting there MUST be cuts and everyone accepting their will have to be some pain, it becomes a finger pointing session. As soon as you tell successful wealthy individuals they haven't earned their wealth, don't deserve their wealth, aren't entitled to keep as much of their wealth as possible and aren't doing their 'fair share' the wealthy individuals immediate response is a nice healthy dose of **** you. Instead of acknowledging and even expressing a little appreciating for the wealthy carrying so much more of the tax burden (at every level...not just income, but property taxes, sales taxes, etc) the poor accuse the rich of stealing from them (a laughable claim) and the politicians pander to the poor by making the rich out to be villains (oh...but not ALL the rich...THOSE guys...you know...NOT the rich democrats, NOT the rich musicians, the rich actors, etc...the OTHER rich guys).

Its not 'reasonable'. In addition to cuts, it will be NECESSARY. But not right and not reasonable.

OscarB63 said:

how is giving more handouts to "the poor" going to create a strong middle class? experience over the past 60 years has shown that all it does is create an ever increasing population dependent on the govt.

Click to expand...

No, giving handouts to the poor doesn't create a strong middle class. What it does is allows American citizens to try and find work instead of starving to death.

waas said:

No, giving handouts to the poor doesn't create a strong middle class. What it does is allows American citizens to try and find work instead of starving to death.

Click to expand...

Again...how does continuing to give handouts allow people to try to find work? all it does is eliminate the incentive to do so, since you have removed the fear of starving to death.

OscarB63 said:

Again...how does continuing to give handouts allow people to try to find work? all it does is eliminate the incentive to do so, since you have removed the fear of starving to death.

Click to expand...

Well, "giving them handouts" allows them to find work, as it gives them the very basics of life. If a person can't attain sustenance, you won't be seeing them in the work force any time soon. Providing those in extreme poverty with food(shelter, clean water, etc.) allows them to stay alive while they look for employment. Also, you can't be serious when you say we should use starvation as incentive, can you?

That's absolutely disgusting

waas said:

Well, "giving them handouts" allows them to find work, as it gives them the very basics of life. If a person can't attain sustenance, you won't be seeing them in the work force any time soon. Providing those in extreme poverty with food(shelter, clean water, etc.) allows them to stay alive while they look for employment. Also, you can't be serious when you say we should use starvation as incentive, can you?

That's absolutely disgusting

Click to expand...

the problem is that IN THEORY giving them handouts allows them to find work. In practice, giving them handouts has allowed them to sit back and keep getting handouts.

OscarB63 said:

the problem is that IN THEORY giving them handouts allows them to find work. In practice, giving them handouts has allowed them to sit back and keep getting handouts.

Click to expand...

It does both, there's no theory here. A person can't look for a job if they don't eat, but, at the same time, they're given the ability to not work for a living.

Do you know of Micheal Harrington? Well, he was an political activist in the middle of the 20th century(and one of Nixon's political enemies). In the the book that earned him a place in US political history, he made a few very important points on this subject:
1. In Harrington's time canvassing the states, he found that those in extreme poverty almost always barely made it by. Their living conditions were incredibly poor, as was their health due to what they ate. This brings up what little we know about human nature: That, given poor conditions(and even good ones), human beings will almost always try to better their lives.
2. Harrington also found that those in extreme poverty were proud and nearly always searching for work - or better work, depending upon their employment status.

waas said:

1. That, given poor conditions(and even good ones), human beings will almost always try to better their lives.

Click to expand...

then explain why there are generation after generation of people living in housing projects and trailer parks, despite the govt spending $$$$$$ on low income scholarships, jobs programs, etc, etc. the prevailing sentiment is "if it was good enough for momma, it is good enough for me"

2. Harrington also found that those in extreme poverty were proud and nearly always searching for work - or better work, depending upon their employment status.

Click to expand...

again...then explain why there are trailer parks and housing projects full of people who have never worked a day in their life

OscarB63 said:

then explain why there are generation after generation of people living in housing projects and trailer parks, despite the govt spending $$$$$$ on low income scholarships, jobs programs, etc, etc. the prevailing sentiment is "if it was good enough for momma, it is good enough for me"

again...then explain why there are trailer parks and housing projects full of people who have never worked a day in their life

Click to expand...

There are a few reasons for that, the most prominent one being class poverty. The cost of education, which is the primary cause behind class poverty, has held an incredibly pervasive seat within the economics of this country.

Others, such as various economic crises, play a role as well.

But this isn't about class poverty and american economic history, it's about what to do now. And that "what" is not to use fear of death as a tool for motivation.