Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course taxing the wealthy at the same rate as the middle class won't erase the deficit. But that is not an argument that they should not pay the same tax rates as the middle class regardless.
If a wealthy investor sells equities that produce capital gains they are taxed less (15%) than the guy who works for a living and makes $80K and gets a $10K bonus and then pays 25% on that bonus. In effect we tax the guy who works for a living twice what we tax the guy who lives off a trust fund. In the meantime with the payroll tax "holiday" expiring the middle class worker is again effected substantially, while the wealthy fellow barely notices.
I suppose we should all be glad that the lord of the manor lives in such splendor, so we can have the luxury of fighting for scraps off his floor?
Last edited by shaker281; 01-10-2013 at 12:49 AM..
This is not all that complicated. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid make up the preponderance of the future expenditures of the Country. Google/wiki it. Simply defaulting on that promise on a graduated basis (scale down over decades) will return our financial position to a positive rate. Leaning out the defense budget (which is a second source of budgetary deficit) will also put us on a sustainable path.
The problem is that were are selfish little piggies as a constituency, and no one is willing to let go of their "right" which to our neighbor represents a "welfare case". We simply need to agree how to go about defaulting on our social promises without scorching the streets. It is not complicated balance sheet wise. It is simply politically taboo.
I see the social hand being forced into that social indian-give. We will do that before the world freaks out and dumps the dollar and everybody goes for a land grab and WWIII. The younger Boomers are probably not going to be happy. Eh, tough. They had a while to downgrade their material expectations just like us Gen Ys are already prepared to get accustomed to.
For that reason I'm not all that concerned about these fiscal cliffs and doom and gloom. The expenditure elephants are easily identified and however politically problematic to tackle, they do present an easy way of reversing our debt trend. It's not a matter of IF we'll decide to stop following on our social promises but when. I say by 2030 we got this thing effectively reversed. America will have lower purchasing standards for the median earners for sure, but the street won't be torched. Life will go on.
Doesn't even come close. You could tax the rich at twice the new rate and wouldn't even come close to wiping out the deficit. And in the meantime, you would completely and utterly destroy the the investment climate in this country.
Doesn't even come close. You could tax the rich at twice the new rate and wouldn't even come close to wiping out the deficit. And in the meantime, you would completely and utterly destroy the the investment climate in this country.
Because people who are getting to keep 85 cents on every dollar will not accept 75 cents on the dollar? They would rather have nothing? Sounds like more of that thinking wherein we give the wealthy everything they want for fear the will take away our jobs. Oh, no!
BTW, who ever said equitably taxing the very wealthy was all it would take to eliminate the deficit?
"A straw man argument occurs in the context of a debate―formal or informal―when one side attacks a position―the "straw man"―not held by the other side, then acts as though the other side's position has been refuted."
"The rich" love to use the argument that even if you tax them at 100% it won't pay off the deficit. Be that as it may, it's a specious argument designed to permit them to avoid taxes, which they do remarkable well already, and thereby keep all of their riches while society provides all of the infrastructure they need to acquire that wealth.
Bottom line is; taxing the rich might not erase the deficit but taxing them to erase the deficit isn't the goal. Taxing them will help pay off the deficit over time the same way the rest of us who use debt responsibly pay off our debt.
Besides, everyone should pay their fair share and something is drastically wrong with the equation when the rich pay lower tax rates than their employees even as they privatize their profits yet socialize their losses.
The rich are already taxed and the deficit hasn't erased yet. It's not the end-all, be-all. Everybody needs to be taxed.
They're already being taxed at the lowest rates since the Great Depression, and, surprise, here we find ourselves in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.
They're paying tax rates lower than their workers. Remember the Clinton years?
Taxing the rich is one small step in right direction. Reducing bloated Defense budget with billions being spent for Defense contractors at bases around the world will be next step. Reducing Social Security and Medicare should also be next step. Then reduce the Food Stamps, Section 8, Medicaid welfare programs. Last but not the least, fix the illegal immigration program.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
