You Can't Fix Stupid

[BigRob]

Yes, we need to grow the GDP. I have seen no evidence that anything the government is doing does that.

Plugging loopholes and bringing American industry back to America might help.

Government spending has doubled in 11 years, too. In addition to raising taxes, we have to cut back the out of control growth of government.

We live in a global economy, we have to stop pretending like we don't.

That said, if you see no evidence that anything the government does grows GDP, why are you so certain taxes must be raised?

 

[BigRob]

I heard that 50% of people are on a low enough income or have enough deductions that they pay no taxes. How can they survive being hit with a 15 to 20% tax?

These same people are the ones that want to tell others that they don't pay their "fair share." If you have no skin in the game, how can you have an honest debate about it.

 

[Lagboltz]

No matter what liberal or conservative solution comes about (if it ever does) I believe that most Americans will have to be resigned to a lower standard of living.

 

[ProudLefty]

I was just using 15% as an example, it could be adjusted when economic studies are done.

As for the highway system, that is supposed to be maintained by taxes on gas correct? If a poor person is not driving, then they are not paying a gas tax.

I agree, that many rich won't complain about paying a little more. I would ultimately be happy to pay more, if the government could get serious about balancing the budget. Without doing that, I have to ask what I am paying more for?

As for being born on third base, you may not have earned it persay, but it doesn't mean you are not on third base still either. I readily admit, I inherited a ton of money, but I have also built up businesses etc outside of that. Just because you inherited something doesn't mean you feel entitled.

Therein lies the debate I suppose. President Obama offered a plan where reduced spending would be 85% of the fix and tax increases would be 15% of the fix. Eric Cantor walked out, saying the Democrats were not being serious with their proposals. My reaction to that is that Eric Cantor is not negotiating; he is just causing constipation.

It is that kind of action that is convincing more and more of America that Republicans are purposely trying to tank the economy.

 

[Lagboltz]

Even the lowest wage earner pays SS and payroll taxes. The idea that many get away with no taxes is a misconception.

But, and extra 15% on top of what they're paying would make a difficult life even more difficult.

Right. I wasn't referring to FICA. But you have a good point.

 

[Openmind]

I was just using 15% as an example, it could be adjusted when economic studies are done.

As for the highway system, that is supposed to be maintained by taxes on gas correct? If a poor person is not driving, then they are not paying a gas tax.

I agree, that many rich won't complain about paying a little more. I would ultimately be happy to pay more, if the government could get serious about balancing the budget. Without doing that, I have to ask what I am paying more for?

As for being born on third base, you may not have earned it persay, but it doesn't mean you are not on third base still either. I readily admit, I inherited a ton of money, but I have also built up businesses etc outside of that. Just because you inherited something doesn't mean you feel entitled.

No, but is sure makes it a lot easier to "built a business" when daddy's money is behind you as collateral. . .and when you had daddy buy you an education (which you also worked for, of course, but didn't have to "pay" for). And, you know that, if everything you try in your new business fails, you will still not end up with 3 kids and a wife on the streets.

I have been in situations to work and play with people at both end of the spectrum, and let me tell you. . .it is a lot easier to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth than it is to turn a straw into a silver spoon!

Still, I congratulate you on your achievements. . . but you are obviously young enough and "elite" enough that you haven't really experience what "poverty" and "hardship" really means!

 

[PLC1]

We live in a global economy, we have to stop pretending like we don't.

That said, if you see no evidence that anything the government does grows GDP, why are you so certain taxes must be raised?

because the government has to have more revenue in order to stop deficit spending. It can't all be done by spending cuts. It is going to take both tax increases and spending cuts.

Back in 2000, which is when we came closest in recent memory to a balanced budget, taxes accounted for nearly 21% of the GDP.

Now, you can argue that the government shouldn't spend 21% of the GDP, but if they do, and if they only collect 17%, then there is going to be a deficit.

 

[ProudLefty]

These same people are the ones that want to tell others that they don't pay their "fair share." If you have no skin in the game, how can you have an honest debate about it.

Everyone but the wealthy has skin in the game - especially the poor.

Just as a point: I used to believe that being poor meant you didn't have money. I have since learned that not having money is the least of it. Being poor means constant fear, constant worry, constant desperation.. The only possible way to survive poverty is with various escape mechanisms. The poor have their skin, their head, and their butt in the game.

Also, the middle class has skin in the game. Middle class means you are getting by, but you aren't rich, and will never be rich. You are middle class, right? Social Security is pretty much it for you. Maybe some equity in the home, maybe a modest pension. But you know you will have Medicare, and Social Security. That is a lot of skin in the game.

So, what skin do the wealthy have in the game? None. None at all. Their skin is provided for, plus. All they have in the game is a few extra dollars that maybe they were going to spend on a new football field out on the island, or a new apartment in Paris, or a maybe an especially nice mistress for the winter. But skin in the game? Not for the wealthy. Do you for one minute believe the Koch brothers will have to give up anything, anything at all, if their tax bill goes up by 12%?

 

[BigRob]

Everyone but the wealthy has skin in the game - especially the poor.

If you are not footing any part of the bill, then you have no skin in the game.

Just as a point: I used to believe that being poor meant you didn't have money. I have since learned that not having money is the least of it. Being poor means constant fear, constant worry, constant desperation.. The only possible way to survive poverty is with various escape mechanisms. The poor have their skin, their head, and their butt in the game.

Also, the middle class has skin in the game. Middle class means you are getting by, but you aren't rich, and will never be rich. You are middle class, right? Social Security is pretty much it for you. Maybe some equity in the
home, maybe a modest pension. But you know you will have Medicare, and Social Security. That is a lot of skin in the game.

Free lunch mentality again. You want (expect) all of these things but are totally unconcerned on how they get paid for.

So, what skin do the wealthy have in the game? None. None at all. Their skin is provided for, plus. All they have in the game is a few extra dollars that maybe they were going to spend on a new
football field out on the island, or a new apartment in Paris, or a maybe an especially nice mistress for the winter. But skin in the game? Not for the wealthy. Do you for one minute believe the Koch brothers will have to give up anything, anything at all, if their tax bill goes up by 12%?

This is even worse...your entire argument boils down to "they can afford it, make them pay more." Simply because you might not like what someone does with their money doesn't mean you get to decide for them.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You Can't Fix Stupid

....But, when they take a shot at running for political-office, they're the perfect comedy-relief!!!