Why raise taxes on the rich...

Why raise taxes on the rich...

Posted in the Fairview Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Frank

Girard, PA

#1 Nov 14, 2012
...and not everyone else?

Serious question, especially for those on the left!!!! Deficit reduction is a math problem, not a political one. If it makes sense to raise taxes on the weathier folks, why does it not make sense to raise them on everyone? Wouldn't that reduce the deficit faster?

Try to keep the snarky answers to a minimum. I wanna know why my bosses money is so special that it can help reduce the deficit better than my money.
duh

Stow, OH

#2 Nov 14, 2012
Frank wrote:
...and not everyone else?
Serious question, especially for those on the left!!!! Deficit reduction is a math problem, not a political one. If it makes sense to raise taxes on the weathier folks, why does it not make sense to raise them on everyone? Wouldn't that reduce the deficit faster?
Try to keep the snarky answers to a minimum. I wanna know why my bosses money is so special that it can help reduce the deficit better than my money.
The rates should be aligned. Anyone in a lower tax bracket who aspiring to jump up the ladder will tell you, they would gladly pay the same rate they do now if/when they earn more in the future. Its really only the legacy children and family business heirs that dont understand this reality; the rest are just greedy.
captain beefheart

Erie, PA

#3 Nov 14, 2012
All this to raise rates on millionaires from 35% to 39%. They paid 90% during the 1940s to help pay for WWII, and 70% or more from 1965 to 1980. The higher rates are, the less reason for the wealthy to sit on their income as they do now. They'd invest it instead, which is what we need to help the economy—plus we'd have far more money coming in to help pay down the debt and/or invest in infrastructure, schools, technology and other long-term investments. 45% as a top bracket would have been a good target for negotiations.
It baffles me as well. And in addition -- the tax code has been written so that trillions of dollars are lost because it is off-shored.
bob right

Clyde, OH

#5 Nov 14, 2012
Implement a use tax
the Green Goblin

Erie, PA

#6 Nov 14, 2012
bob right wrote:
Implement a use tax
Our economy is consumption and discouraging that is the opposite of what we need. Rather, I say we tax highly income that consumes nothing like stock trades.
tim leary

United States

#7 Nov 14, 2012
The short answer -because you've fcked us blind for 30 years. The Occupy movement woke America up to this fact, now you're going to start paying us back.
bob right

Clyde, OH

#8 Nov 14, 2012
the Green Goblin wrote:
<quoted text>
Our economy is consumption and discouraging that is the opposite of what we need. Rather, I say we tax highly income that consumes nothing like stock trades.
if there was a brain use tax you would be off the hook
Frank

Girard, PA

#9 Nov 14, 2012
tim leary wrote:
The short answer -because you've fcked us blind for 30 years. The Occupy movement woke America up to this fact, now you're going to start paying us back.
There you go, snakry, most called that one because you have narry a clue!
Frank

Girard, PA

#10 Nov 14, 2012
duh wrote:
<quoted text>
The rates should be aligned. Anyone in a lower tax bracket who aspiring to jump up the ladder will tell you, they would gladly pay the same rate they do now if/when they earn more in the future. Its really only the legacy children and family business heirs that dont understand this reality; the rest are just greedy.
Good points till you got to the silver spoons and the greedy!

Like I said, its a math problem. Political left says we have to share pain then sends all the pain in one direction...with the assumption that it really won't hurt those people that much. Political right buries head in sand and says "just cut spending", which has the effect of slowing the economy and thereby throwing the pain in the opposite direction.

To me, the only fix to this is to limit Gov't growth to a level just slightly BELOW the growth of the GDP, raise taxes on social security to a level that supports the program (sorry righty bretheren, if you are going to have it, you have to fund it), and let the growth of the economy generate more revenues over time to the point where you close your deficit. It takes time! Lots of time. But that, to me is the only way to do this without shutting the economy down again.

Anyway, still hoping for someone who likes taxing the rich to explain how this makes any sense over the long term. I just don't think "because they can afford it" is a viable answer.
Frank

Girard, PA

#11 Nov 14, 2012
So if we tax only the wealthy, how many day will that fund the government?

Not to many days!

Then what?
the Green Goblin

Erie, PA

#12 Nov 14, 2012
bob right wrote:
<quoted text>if there was a brain use tax you would be off the hook
Thanks for responding. Your opinion means a lot to me.
the Green Goblin

Erie, PA

#13 Nov 14, 2012
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Good points till you got to the silver spoons and the greedy!
Like I said, its a math problem. Political left says we have to share pain then sends all the pain in one direction...with the assumption that it really won't hurt those people that much. Political right buries head in sand and says "just cut spending", which has the effect of slowing the economy and thereby throwing the pain in the opposite direction.
To me, the only fix to this is to limit Gov't growth to a level just slightly BELOW the growth of the GDP, raise taxes on social security to a level that supports the program (sorry righty bretheren, if you are going to have it, you have to fund it), and let the growth of the economy generate more revenues over time to the point where you close your deficit. It takes time! Lots of time. But that, to me is the only way to do this without shutting the economy down again.
Anyway, still hoping for someone who likes taxing the rich to explain how this makes any sense over the long term. I just don't think "because they can afford it" is a viable answer.
You think yourself perhaps the voice of reason here. Answer this: would you rather have your taxes increased or not have to work, get all government bennies, be on welfare and live in a slum?

Just what I thought so you can shut your poor mouth cakehole anytime now.
Ayn rand stole my dog

United States

#14 Nov 14, 2012
Everyone has to pay higher taxes, that is just a hard pill to swallow.
The very rich have gotten an unbelievable deal for the past twenty years.
The very poor have gotten a pretty good deal too.
The middle class has gotten shat on by both.
the Green Goblin

Erie, PA

#15 Nov 14, 2012
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Good points till you got to the silver spoons and the greedy!
Like I said, its a math problem. Political left says we have to share pain then sends all the pain in one direction...with the assumption that it really won't hurt those people that much. Political right buries head in sand and says "just cut spending", which has the effect of slowing the economy and thereby throwing the pain in the opposite direction.
To me, the only fix to this is to limit Gov't growth to a level just slightly BELOW the growth of the GDP, raise taxes on social security to a level that supports the program (sorry righty bretheren, if you are going to have it, you have to fund it), and let the growth of the economy generate more revenues over time to the point where you close your deficit. It takes time! Lots of time. But that, to me is the only way to do this without shutting the economy down again.
Anyway, still hoping for someone who likes taxing the rich to explain how this makes any sense over the long term. I just don't think "because they can afford it" is a viable answer.
If "taxing the rich" makes no sense then it must follow that taxing them anything makes no sense, correct? But if we agree that they should be taxed the next question should be how much and who decides the amount. I think the election made that clear. Disrespecting the will of the majority is all your type is doing. Sort of speaks to your superior attitude which I alluded to on another thread.

If you die tomorrow don't worry someone will step in to take your place. Newsflash to you, you're not irreplaceable, high and mighty business owner or not. In fact, the economy as a whole won't even miss a beat. Sorry to bring you back to earth.
the Green Goblin

Erie, PA

#16 Nov 14, 2012
Frank wrote:
So if we tax only the wealthy, how many day will that fund the government?
Not to many days!
Then what?
If the government taxes only me the government can't run for long therefore why tax me at all? I like that foxnewsreasoning. Is that copyrighted?
the Green Goblin

Erie, PA

#17 Nov 14, 2012
Ayn rand stole my dog wrote:
Everyone has to pay higher taxes, that is just a hard pill to swallow.
The very rich have gotten an unbelievable deal for the past twenty years.
The very poor have gotten a pretty good deal too.
The middle class has gotten shat on by both.
Nobody got shit on if you live within your means or augment your service to reflect the amount you want to end up with.
Ayn rand stole my dog

United States

#18 Nov 14, 2012
Your joking, right? The middle class has funded all the tax breaks for the rich and supported all the welfare deadbeats for a long time.

When someone's income exceeds another's by 100 fold, but their effective tax rate is half, that is called a Cleveland steamer.
tim leary

Erie, PA

#19 Nov 14, 2012
captain beefheart wrote:
All this to raise rates on millionaires from 35% to 39%. They paid 90% during the 1940s to help pay for WWII, and 70% or more from 1965 to 1980. The higher rates are, the less reason for the wealthy to sit on their income as they do now. They'd invest it instead, which is what we need to help the economy—plus we'd have far more money coming in to help pay down the debt and/or invest in infrastructure, schools, technology and other long-term investments. 45% as a top bracket would have been a good target for negotiations.
It baffles me as well. And in addition -- the tax code has been written so that trillions of dollars are lost because it is off-shored.
Wow! You sound really smart! I bet you've made a lot of money and you're rich! You're not? Not surprised, moron.
latex solar beef

Stow, OH

#20 Nov 14, 2012
Ayn rand stole my dog wrote:
Your joking, right? The middle class has funded all the tax breaks for the rich and supported all the welfare deadbeats for a long time.
When someone's income exceeds another's by 100 fold, but their effective tax rate is half, that is called a Cleveland steamer.
"You can hear the steam baby, you can hear the screamin' steam, as the reamer steams up the lake, a reamy weemy like a seethin snake"
Stu Pedaso

Canton, OH

#21 Nov 15, 2012
Taxes are NOT being 'raised'. The Bush tax cuts are ending as the legislation that began them required.

The President has proposed that taxes on those below the $250K threshold be consequently CUT.

What the 1%ers did with their cuts was involve us in two wars on the nation's credit card that they now demand ought to be paid for by those who fought and died in those wars.

They should pay until their sneer at the nation dissolves in tears.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Fairview Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
John Persinger 2 min Norman 21
20/20 3 min Rustbeltretard 18
Tari B - Racist Serbian agent!! 14 min slobodan on Heart... 6
Tari Balko 25 min Toxic Tampon Alert 34
Hey liberals 31 min Lol 4
Abe Lincoln statue 41 min Gel mibson 11
Kinzua Dam mysteriously clised 51 min Serbian Government 26

Fairview Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Fairview Mortgages