Romney Will Explode the Debt By Trillions

[Neally]

why can't you agree that under-taxation of the rich is a problem,

It could be a problem, but we are facing just the opposite now, over taxation of the rich and under taxation of the poor, as per my previous post.

And I notice that you're not addressing the fact that Romney will explode the debt by trillions.

He needs to complete the equation by flattening out the rates so that everyone pays their fair share, but ultimately the real solution is unacceptable by both parties--reining in the bottomless pit of entitlements.

Yes, the Federal Income tax is progressive. It’s supposed to be. It’s based on the idea that the more money you have, the more money can be taken from you in taxes without affecting your standard of living.

Yes we know, Marx stated it so eloquently, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

The top one percent make 19 percent of the income but pay only one percent of cigarette taxes in the US. I don’t pay any cigarette taxes at all. I don’t pay any corporate taxes either. So what?

So, you think mixing apples and oranges is a way to support your case?

 

[RandFan]

It could be a problem, but we are facing just the opposite now, over taxation of the rich and under taxation of the poor, as per my previous post.

I see nothing in your previous post to justify such a proposition. Society must meet it's obligations. Social programs are good for society and hence good for everyone but of course they cost money. A progressive tax is the only tax that can allow for society to meet those obligations.

The rich have arguably gained more wealth in recent decades than they have in most of history. One needs to ask how and why they got wealthy in the first place and why people can't get as wealthy living in Somalia?

Well, in large part it's because we have a progressive tax that funds education, infrastructure, academic R&D, etc, etc.. To argue that wealthy got ultra wealthy and did so while being over taxed is absurd.

 

[Neally]

I see nothing in your previous post to justify such a proposition.

Your inability to understand that, "the wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax", is not my concern.

 

[Belz...]

Lets just hope this great country continues to have defeat for you foolish liberals. Its fun watching you lose so badly.

I just love Republicans. As long as the opposition loses, it doesn't matter if everybody else does, too.

 

[Cain]

The top one percent make 19 percent of the income but pay only one percent of cigarette taxes in the US. I don’t pay any cigarette taxes at all. I don’t pay any corporate taxes either. So what?

Yes, the Federal Income tax is progressive. It’s supposed to be. It’s based on the idea that the more money you have, the more money can be taken from you in taxes without affecting your standard of living. Going from $30k before taxes to $24k after taxes is a big dent in your standard of living. Going from $3 million a year to $2.4 million a year is not.

Frankly I find the constant repetition of the “half of Americans pay no income tax” to be a very ugly fraud. While technically true, it is designed to confuse people as to what is actually going on. Many people hear this line and think that half of Americans pay no taxes at all, and the GOP is not exactly going out of its way to correct them. It’s a way to justify slashing away at the safety net and keep the have-nots and the have-littles at each other throats while the small handful of have-a-lots sit on the sidelines counting their money.

Works too. The bottom 50% are not paying "just 3 percent of the taxes". Granted that was probably a mistake on your part in not being suffiently precise, but enough of those little mistakes on Fox and Friends, the Sunday morning bobblehead shows, web forums, etc., and you can create the impression that the poorest half of Americans are nothing but parasites, when it is just not the case. It turns into one of those "everyone knows" sort of things that never go away no matter how many times you refute them.

Again, the poor are paying gas taxes, Medicare taxes, Social Security taxes, etc. They are paying taxes, and I see no reason to trash talk them because they don’t make enough money to pay one particular tax.

Another good post.

I'd only add that the poor, toiling at minimum wage jobs, etc., basically enrich the wealthy. "But they'd be living in mud huts if not for the Hank Reardons and John Galts of the world." And if not for the masses, those guys would have to roll up their sleeves.

A globalized economy means stagnating wages for people at the bottom, and surging wealth gains for the people at the top. Given a progressive tax (or even a flat tax) that translates into a higher percentage of govt. revenue coming from the rich. What's perverse is that Republicans take this as evidence that the wealthy are paying more than their fair share.

 

[RandFan]

Your inability to understand that, "the wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax", is not my concern.

I do understand it. That's NOT an argument. It does not follow from that fact that it is a "problem". Especially in light of the fact that they would not be wealthy had there not been a progressive tax long before they were born to fund social programs, infrastructure and a military.

Your inability to understand that simple fact is not my concern.

 

[DavidJames]

Come on RandFan, get with the program greed is good. He who dies with the most toys/money wins. The less fortunate? **** 'um. Those bastard poor people need to pony up more.

 

[Belz...]

"Don't make enough" as defined by the highly unfair progressive tax scheme.

No, 'don't make enough' as defined by the principles of compassion.

A person making 50 million a year can afford even a 90% tax rate.

 

[Belz...]

Wrong question. Some people will be born into better circumstances than others. It would be insane to try to "fix" that.

Wow. So all you care about is making the rich people richer ? Why ?

 

[BenBurch]

What it needs to be is more progressive. Raise MY taxes, damn it. And Every dollar above $1M needs to be taxed at 70%. Including capital gains. Capital gains should be no different than income.

 

[Belz...]

It could be a problem, but we are facing just the opposite now, over taxation of the rich and under taxation of the poor, as per my previous post.

How are the rich over-taxes ? How does it affect their standard of living, exactly ? I would like to get a serious and detailed response to this.

 

[BenBurch]

I just love Republicans. As long as the opposition loses, it doesn't matter if everybody else does, too.

Pyrrhic victory is sweet.

 

[BenBurch]

How are the rich over-taxes ? How does it affect their standard of living, exactly ? I would like to get a serious and detailed response to this.

They have to do without car elevators. And they cannot afford as many illegal alien servants, so have to load their own dishwashers! The HORROR.

 

[RandFan]

Come on RandFan, get with the program greed is good. He who dies with the most toys/money wins. The less fortunate? **** 'um. Those bastard poor people need to pony up more.

Uh oh, David, look at my NIC, I do think greed is good... well, it depends on one's definition of greed I suppose. In the sense you mean it, which is self indulgence to the exclusion of all other interests, then it's bad and I agree with your post.

But I just want to say that I think the word "greed" is problematic as it is prone to equivocation. I don't think that there is anything wrong with wanting and seeking to acquire wealth and to live a good life (either epicurian or some forms of hedonism). Such desires are very powerful motivators. Instead of "greed" I would say rational self interest as I can easily argue that reciprocal altruism and welfare are rationally in our self interest. Even if Rand would not have been too eager to agree with me.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, 'don't make enough' as defined by the principles of compassion.

A person making 50 million a year can afford even a 90% tax rate.

The is Eisenhower level communism. Remember the motor of republicans, We Hate Ike!

 

[DavidJames]

Uh oh, David, look at my NIC, I do think greed is good... well, it depends on one's definition of greed I suppose. In the sense you mean it, which is self indulgence to the exclusion of all other interests, then it's bad and I agree with your post.

But I just want to say that I think the word "greed" is problematic as it is prone to equivocation. I don't think that there is anything wrong with wanting and seeking to acquire wealth and to live a good life (either epicurian or some forms of hedonism). Such desires are very powerful motivators. Instead of "greed" I would say rational self interest as I can easily argue that reciprocal altruism and welfare are rationally in our self interest. Even if Rand would not have been too eager to agree with me.

Unless you use a different dictionary or recognize any common definitions which I haven't seen, greed is a negative adjective for accumulation of wealth and that's how I mean it.

Problematic, equivocation? Seriously

 

[Neally]

A person making 50 million a year can afford even a 90% tax rate.

Sure and again Marx put in perfectly, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Wow. So all you care about is making the rich people richer ? Why ?

Wow, you read minds. Can you predict the future too?

How are the rich over-taxes ? How does it affect their standard of living, exactly ? I would like to get a serious and detailed response to this.

Affects to standard of living isn't necessily the criteria of "over taxed". Paying a greater portion of their income in income taxes is, therefore they are over taxed.

 

[Corsair 115]

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. Google is your friend.

Ah, so you cite statistics but do not include the source you used, just a generic "Google". Your case would have been stronger had you linked directly to the data you're citing, which would allow responders in this thread to assess the source material and its veracity and debate whether the data is as contextually correct as you seem to think it is.

But that would mean actual debate and discussion instead of rhetoric.

 

[RandFan]

Unless you use a different dictionary or recognize any common definitions which I haven't seen, greed is a negative adjective for accumulation of wealth and that's how I mean it.

Doesn't that beg the question? Are you not assuming that accumulation of wealth is in itself negative? I suspect your definition is incomplete but it really doesn't matter. We could have a philosophical discussion but I don't see the point. I'm not invested in the word.

Problematic, equivocation? Seriously

Seriously, yes, but, seriously, I hate semantic arguments. In the end it was your choice of a word to convey an idea that is in your head and I'm fine with that. I'm confident that I know what you mean by "greed" and I agree with that. Sorry for the aside. I was simply trying to make a point that wanting material wealth isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing.

 

[RandFan]

Sure and again Marx put in perfectly, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Straw man. A progressive tax rate is not the same as Marxist philosophy. A progressive tax doesn't simply consider needs nor does it cap the amount of wealth a person can acquire. You would have been better to change Marx's maxim to "a portion from each based on his ability to pay". But then that would fatally alter it.