73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[Dr.Who]

maybe its not such a good idea to have a family of four if your earning power can't accommodate it. what you are suggesting is that its not "fair" that some have more earning power than others. well thats just too bad but that will never change.

It is true that it won't change. But we could remove an awful lot of barriers that make it harder for the poor to get ahead. The number of people who meet a realistic defintion of poor is pretty small. If we could have that then it wouild be tiny.

 

[Dr.Who]

Right now, it is the top 1% and their paid for politicians in the GOP that have a gun at the head of the poor and the elderly, wanting to cut the only thing that keep them from falling even further dire poverty, to the streets.

The tax system is not a gun. If you don't pay, you get fined. if you still don't pay, they go after your assets. If you don't have assets, you go bankrupt, and the story is over. If you have assets, you can either pay, or you lose some of your assets. . . And obviously, the population we are talking about has plenty of assets to lose, without falling in the gutter!

Funny though how it is always the people who are the most "pro-guns" who use this "gun to your head" argument!

When they go after your assets how do they make sure that you comply? Obviously they make sure that you are visited by the sheriff - who carries a gun. Without the gun a whole lot of people would refuse to pay. A whole lot of people. A whole lot.

 

[Dr.Who]

The problem with this is that it automatically assumes that, if one doesn't manage to earn enough money to support himself or his/her family, it is obviously because that person is lazy or isn't working hard enough.
It automatically assumes that opportunities to work at jobs that pay enough to thrive in society are endless, and that if one doesn't work in one of those jobs, it is entirely his/her fault.

I have a very different perspective. . .

You are right that it does make that assumption. There are two possibilities: the person who is lazy and the one who through no fault of his own is in dire straights.

For the lazy the vast majority of americans would not have him receive anything. For the unfortunate there should be help just not from a gov that does not have the authority to give it in the way that it has been done.

Since the gov cannot give that help then any rational person would throw all their efforts into helping as much as they themselves and can persuading their brothers to give generously likewise.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, I am FAR from pro-gun! I think guns are a plague, and they are only giving an ILLUSION of safety to anyone. But since it is the law of the land, and I can't change it, I (reluctantly) accept it.

Turns out the illusion of safety is real:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/30/media-silence-is-deafening-about-important-gun-news/

I agree that spending needs to be curbed. . .I have ALWAYS stated that. But it needs to be curbed in a way that makes sense, and I think that "corporate welfare" and huge spending on "defense" (which mostly benefits corporate defense contractors) have to be curbed BEFORE (or at least at the same time) as social welfare.

Works for me. Addtionally spending needs to be cut before taxes are increased.

And. . .the transfer of money from the poor and lower middle class to the wealthy top 1% has to stop NOW!

I know of zero gov programs that are designed to do that. Show me. I do know that there are politicians on both sides of the aisle that game the system to accomplish that in underhanded ways - that has to stop.

It is ridiculous to talk about "sharing in the sacrifice" when ONLY the social programs are "allowed" by the GOP to be cut, but they refuse any suggestion to curb the corporate welfare spending, and ask "shared sacrifices" from the wealthy.

It would be dishonest to think that both parties are not complicit.

The "welfare state" of democratic socialism Europe have been successfully competing with our "capitalist only" America for decades. And, in spite of the global situation, they are still ahead of us in economic development, in infrastructure, in education, and in health care costs.

No they are not.

At least, because they have very strong safety nets, they DO HAVE places where they can cut (without abolishing them) social program. . .WE DON"T! Our safety net is soooo weak, that when we cut anything (whether it be food stamps, unemployment, assistance to the poor or disabled, medicare) we throw our economy even further into the gutter!

We have a definition of poverty that includes so many people who are not poor by any realistic standard. We could cut assitance to anyone who is not really poor.

The best place to "cut" is in corporate welfare, in tax loopholes. But. . .that obviously doesn't meet the "ideology" of the right, and especially their wealthy supporters!

It is a very very good place to cut. I would be willing to bet that a search of this site would reveal hundreds of quotes from those on the right saying exactly that.

 

[Openmind]

Turns out the illusion of safety is real:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/30/media-silence-is-deafening-about-important-gun-news/


Works for me. Addtionally spending needs to be cut before taxes are increased.



I know of zero gov programs that are designed to do that. Show me. I do know that there are politicians on both sides of the aisle that game the system to accomplish that in underhanded ways - that has to stop.

I
It would be dishonest to think that both parties are not complicit.

No they are not.


We have a definition of poverty that includes so many people who are not poor by any realistic standard. We could cut assitance to anyone who is not really poor.


It is a very very good place to cut. I would be willing to bet that a search of this site would reveal hundreds of quotes from those on the right saying exactly that.

disagree that our safety net is as strong as Europe's.

I disagree that our GDP is as large as the combination of all the European countries. It is barely larger than that the few countries that make up the current European Union. . .and Germany, France, and Belgium have a lager GDP per capita than the US.

And I do believe a lot of government programs benefit BIG CORPORATIONS, therefore their CEO's, Wall Street, and the very wealthy.

Even the tax system benefits the wealthy (capital gain taxes lower than "income" taxes, tax loop holes, even the very popular mortgage interest deduction. . .it obviously benefits people who have "jumbo" --or super jumbo -- mortgages a lot more than people who have a $50,000 to $150,000 mortgage!). In fact, that is a place where some cuts could be made. . .only allow mortgage interests up to (let's say) the "jumbo" base to be deductible!

 

[GenSeneca]

Even the tax system benefits the wealthy (capital gain taxes lower than "income" taxes...

So you really don't care that raising CG rates will cause revenue to drop?

 

[Openmind]

So you really don't care that raising CG rates will cause revenue to drop?

I care about fairness. And it is NOT proven that raising capital gain rates would cause revenues to drop. . . .revenues will increase if the demand for product increases, which would lead to a need for more workers, which would lead to less unemployment.

You are confusing the issues.

 

[GenSeneca]

I care about fairness.

You care about discriminating against a minority of people and you call that "fairness".

And it is NOT proven that raising capital gain rates would cause revenues to drop. . . .

40 years of historical data says you're wrong.

You are confusing the issues.

You're the one saying that raising CG rates is about "fairness" and not about revenue. The purpose of taxation is to fund the government, not to punish people you don't like and reward people you do.

 

[Openmind]

You care about discriminating against a minority of people and you call that "fairness".


40 years of historical data says you're wrong.


You're the one saying that raising CG rates is about "fairness" and not about revenue. The purpose of taxation is to fund the government, not to punish people you don't like and reward people you do.

You are going back to your "trickle down" economic principle which, obviously do not work. . .

I believe in demand side economy, not supply side!
And 40 years of data do not state that supply side economy, or lower taxes give a steady increase in revenue. . .on the contrary!

I do not discriminate against "a minority!" I (as Reagan was) am in favor of the top 1% paying its fair share to support their country, who has supported their becoming that wealthy.

That 1% minority holds a huge % of the wealth. It is much less a "minority" that needs "protection" than it is an "elite" who is trying to rule the majority.

Did you hear what may become the new "name" for the Wall Street protesters?

The 99%! And, guess what, I am perfectly happy to be part of them!

 

[GenSeneca]

I do not discriminate against "a minority!"

1% is a minority.

I am in favor of the top 1% paying its fair share

The top 1% already pays 40% of the taxes... How much is their "fair share", 100%?

It is much less a "minority" that needs "protection" than it is an "elite" who is trying to rule the majority.

Destroying the property rights of one individual destroys the property rights of all individuals.

Did you hear what may become the new "name" for the Wall Street protesters?

The 99%! And, guess what, I am perfectly happy to be part of them!

Marx already gave them a name, Useful Idiots.

 

[Openmind]

The top 1% already pays 40% of the taxes... How much is their "fair share", 100%?

Sounds pretty fair to me, since already in 2001, the top 1% held 38% of all wealth in the US!. . .and it has gone up since then!

Destroying the property rights of one individual destroys the property rights of all individuals.

Tell that to the people who are losing their home because of the "investors" in those sub-prime mortgages!

Marx already gave them a name, Useful Idiots.

For someone who hates communism, you sure are focus on Marx!

 

[GenSeneca]

Sounds pretty fair to me...

May I quote you as saying that the top 1% in America should pay 100% of the taxes...

Tell that to the people who are losing their home because of the "investors" in those sub-prime mortgages!

That has nothing to do with anything I've said.

For someone who hates communism, you sure are focus on Marx!

If you'd bothered reading more Marx you'd realize that you're being used by the elites you think you're trying to destroy.

 

[PLC1]

If the top 1% economically have 40% of the wealth, and pay 38% of the taxes, it sounds to me as if the taxes must be pretty fair over all. What's the problem?

 

[Openmind]

May I quote you as saying that the top 1% in America should pay 100% of the taxes...

Show me where I said that! Another dishonest spin, and you know it. You stated that the top 1% already pays 40% of the tax, and I answered that this seems fair, as already in 2001, 38% of the wealth in the US belonged to them!. . . and they have accumulated more wealth since!

If you want me to put a "number" on what I think might be fair. . I would say 50%!

If you'd bothered reading more Marx you'd realize that you're being used by the elites you think you're trying to destroy.

Sure, dear! And you're trying to protect me from being used, right?

 

[Openmind]

If the top 1% economically have 40% of the wealth, and pay 38% of the taxes, it sounds to me as if the taxes must be pretty fair over all. What's the problem?

Except that, the 38% of total wealth that the top 1% held dates from 2001. . .since then, they are basically the only groups who has seen their wealth INCREASE!

I will try to find out what percentage of the total wealth they hold today!

Here it is:

Top 1 Percent Control 42 Percent of Financial Wealth in the U.S. ... www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financi...Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Wall Street is so disconnected from the average American that they fail to see the 27 million unemployed and underemployed Americans that ... 42 percent of financial wealth is controlled by the top 1 percent. .... Welcome to the 2010 serfdom. ...