Do You Think The Rich Should Be Taxed More?

Hello Nordberg,

Nordberg said:
not about giving the rich more money. It is about starving the beast. They want to crank the deficits up to the limit, where that can say we cannot pat for any social programs. They want to end Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and any other programs that help the poor of frail. The wealthy don't need more money, but they will not refuse it. Most of them do not know what the long term plan is. http://theweek.com/articles/743367/dont-fall-scam-destroy-medicare-social-security
Click to expand...

That's the theory but it doesn't work. And it can't possibly work in the long run. All those social programs and government assistance programs are what prevents the poor from rising up and voting the rich demagogues out. If they took it all away they would have a massive revolution on their hands and the whole gift horse would crash for the rich.

Besides, Amazon, Walmart and McDonalds would instantly fold if they didn't have the taxpayers to support their work force.
 
Threedee said:
If the tax cut has not helped the economy, then why are we suddenly looking at 3% GDP for the first time in a decade? Why is the unemployment rate, at a 17 year low, projected to hit a 50 year low next month?

If you're really serious about the budget, you would not be championing the candidate who wanted to waste all of that money on student loans.
Click to expand...
GDP growth has actually slowed over the last year. Under Obama, we saw multiple quarters with over 3%, even 4% growth. The unemployment figures, also, are just continuing trends that we saw under Obama. Why are we seeing more store closings? Sears, K-Mart, Younkers, Bon Ton, Toys "R" Us.
 
rjhenn said:
GDP growth has actually slowed over the last year. Under Obama, we saw multiple quarters with over 3%, even 4% growth. The unemployment figures, also, are just continuing trends that we saw under Obama. Why are we seeing more store closings? Sears, K-Mart, Younkers, Bon Ton, Toys "R" Us.
Click to expand...

Because of internet sales. Consumer spending has increased.
 
rjhenn said:
GDP growth has actually slowed over the last year. Under Obama, we saw multiple quarters with over 3%, even 4% growth. The unemployment figures, also, are just continuing trends that we saw under Obama. Why are we seeing more store closings? Sears, K-Mart, Younkers, Bon Ton, Toys "R" Us.
Click to expand...

And yet, annual GDP was in the toilet.
 
Flash said:
They do (87%). That is the way progressive taxation is supposed to work. A lot of that 80% is not "profits" but salaries and other sources of income.
Click to expand...

Not correct. They actually pay a smaller and smaller percent of taxes as the last 60 years shows. If they are paying a big portion of all the taxes paid with a smaller percent, that is just a great illustration of the wealth gap. They have all the fucking money.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Nordberg,



That's the theory but it doesn't work. And it can't possibly work in the long run. All those social programs and government assistance programs are what prevents the poor from rising up and voting the rich demagogues out. If they took it all away they would have a massive revolution on their hands and the whole gift horse would crash for the rich.

Besides, Amazon, Walmart and McDonalds would instantly fold if they didn't have the taxpayers to support their work force.
Click to expand...
The vision includes a time of upheaval. The wealthy live separate lives from the masses. They live in gated and protected communities. they don't work out where we are. They don't go to our schools , restaurants or play golf where we are. People like the Kochs are ready for it. The vision woks but its' application will not be to our benefit. http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-do-not-create-jobs-2011-12
 
Last edited:
Nordberg said:
Not correct. They actually pay a smaller and smaller percent of taxes as the last 60 years shows. If they are paying a big portion of all the taxes paid with a smaller percent, that is just a great illustration of the wealth gap. They have all the fucking money.
Click to expand...

It can't be both. With each tax cut the percentage of all federal income taxes paid by the wealthy has increased because we have virtually eliminated income taxes for the bottom 40-50%. And yes, the wealth gap means they make a higher percent of the income which means they pay more of the taxes--the way progressive taxation is supposed to work. The bottom 40% pay -106% and the bottom 50% pay 4%.

See IRS and CBO data. It is well documented. The percentage of all federal income taxes paid by the wealthy has steadily increased over the years.
 
Flash said:
It can't be both. With each tax cut the percentage of all federal income taxes paid by the wealthy has increased because we have virtually eliminated income taxes for the bottom 40-50%. And yes, the wealth gap means they make a higher percent of the income which means they pay more of the taxes--the way progressive taxation is supposed to work. The bottom 40% pay -106% and the bottom 50% pay 4%.

See IRS and CBO data. It is well documented. The percentage of all federal income taxes paid by the wealthy has steadily increased over the years.
Click to expand...

Graph makes it clear. The wealthy are getting richer and richer. The wealth gap is worse than it was during the Gilded Age. It has intrinsic dangers with allowing or creating that.
 
Nordberg said:
Graph makes it clear. The wealthy are getting richer and richer. The wealth gap is worse than it was during the Gilded Age. It has intrinsic dangers with allowing or creating that.
Click to expand...

That was not the issue in the post. That same IRS/CBO data clearly shows increased income concentration.

The post was not about income inequality but that the wealthy (top 20%) pay 87% of federal income taxes. Not, as you and some other posters claimed, that they are paying a smaller share of federal income taxes.
 
Frank Apisa said:
You wrote..."evidence is not needed" for your assertion.

Why are you telling me I need evidence for mine?

Your claim about the "definition" is wrong.
Click to expand...

Evidence would suggest additional information to support a premise. A definition is simply stated and does not require any further evidence to clarify its position. I never stated you needed evidence for yours, rather I stated if your going to negate my definition as least provide some support to your claim instead of simply negating it.

How is my definition wrong when it is a universally accepted historical fact?
 
goldkam said:
Evidence would suggest additional information to support a premise. A definition is simply stated and does not require any further evidence to clarify its position. I never stated you needed evidence for yours, rather I stated if your going to negate my definition as least provide some support to your claim instead of simply negating it.

How is my definition wrong when it is a universally accepted historical fact?
Click to expand...

Not only is your definition of socialism NOT universally accepted...it is not even generally accepted.

Now...what say we stop this nonsense. Give evidence for your assertion...or don't. But if you are going further to assert that YOUR assertions do not need evidence...then I will also assert it.
 
Hello goldkam,

goldkam said:
Because he created socialism. Never stated it couldn't be evolving, rather the basis of my notion was its definition
Click to expand...

OK, so now we are at the point were we agree socialism can evolve beyond the concepts laid down by Marx. Good. Because what I see is that the USA, and all other industrialized nations, are mixing socialism with capitalism. The only real differences are the proportions and specifically which areas of their economy they have decided to use socialism for.

There is not much point any more in arguing whether socialism or capitalism is better.

We are never going to have to chose between one or the other.

We already have them quite intermingled with great success.

Socialism is not some 'disease which only grows until it consumes all.'

That's ridiculous. It is a tool at our disposal just like capitalism.

So there is really no point in arguing that taxing the rich more will turn us into a socialist nation. In the light of our evolving model of socialism, we are no longer worrying about such things because we know that is not even close to being an issue.

We have a lot of socialist government assistance programs and we need them. We are not so much over-spending in our government as we are under-taxing the rich. We have these programs, they are working for us, and we need to pay for our government. That means taxing those who can pay for it.

You know, the only way America can possibly be so great as to have all these social programs is if we tax the rich. The poor certainly can't pay for it. They are the recipients of it. The middle really doesn't have a lot extra to spare, certainly not enough to wipe out our deficit and begin paying down the federal debt. But the rich. The rich actually do earn enough to pay higher taxes only on the amounts they earn above what the middle earns, to completely wipe out the deficit and begin paying down the debt. President Trump said if elected he could pay down the debt. So why has he made the debt higher instead???

The numbers are there.

We can tax the rich more and begin paying down the debt.

Now is the time when the economy is doing well.

We are stupid to let the rich get away with this foolish tax cut.
 
it is so simple. the tax laws since Eisenhowers time have moved the great wealth of America to the wealthy. That is why funding the government requires taxing those who have all the money. And in a larger sense, an enormous wealth gap is dangerous to the American system as we used to know it.
 
Nordberg said:
it is so simple. the tax laws since Eisenhowers time have moved the great wealth of America to the wealthy. That is why funding the government requires taxing those who have all the money. And in a larger sense, an enormous wealth gap is dangerous to the American system as we used to know it.
Click to expand...

And yet you conveniently forget that at that time, America was the ONLY industrial superpower in the entire frigging world until Germany and Japan came along after they rebuilt after WWII. Plus now with a plethora of new and unconstitutional welfare spending? Sorry, but this is exclusively the Left's fault.
 
Hello Nordberg,

Nordberg said:
it is so simple. the tax laws since Eisenhowers time have moved the great wealth of America to the wealthy. That is why funding the government requires taxing those who have all the money. And in a larger sense, an enormous wealth gap is dangerous to the American system as we used to know it.
Click to expand...

It is obvious we should tax the rich more. Many of the rich agree.

I neither need nor want the tax cut if it adds to the federal debt. I say take it back. Tax us higher, with the steepest hikes on the super-rich who can pay far more without batting a single eyelash.

It is irresponsible for us to divvy up a tax cut while we are not paying enough to run the government.

Especially now when the economy is going strong and it is able to pay more revenue. Now is the time. The government went the wrong way on this.

It certainly can not be done during a recession. That's when gov spending always goes up and revenue always goes down.

Do it now!

Take away the tax cut!

Impose a tax hike!

Tax the rich more while we can still get enough revenue to begin paying down the debt.

These are words of wisdom and should be heeded. We will have bad problems if we don't. Mark my words...
 
Hello Nordberg,

Nordberg said:
it is so simple. the tax laws since Eisenhowers time have moved the great wealth of America to the wealthy. That is why funding the government requires taxing those who have all the money. And in a larger sense, an enormous wealth gap is dangerous to the American system as we used to know it.
Click to expand...

They have also moved the US Debt to dangerously high levels. Worse, our debt/GDP ratio is 105.5%.
 
Boris The Animal said:
And yet you conveniently forget that at that time, America was the ONLY industrial superpower in the entire frigging world until Germany and Japan came along after they rebuilt after WWII. Plus now with a plethora of new and unconstitutional welfare spending? Sorry, but this is exclusively the Left's fault.
Click to expand...

Why does that matter? The other nations instituted universal healthcare and a platform that kept people from starving. We were the richest and did nothing about it. Now they are all much happier and secure than we are.
Fact is FDR started Social Security to end the suffering of our old people who were living terribly. He wanted too start universal healthcare but that was too soon after SS. But he was sure America would do the right thing by its people. Obviously he was wrong. Lots of haters like you do not care if segments of our society suffer.
 
Boris The Animal said:
And yet you conveniently forget that at that time, America was the ONLY industrial superpower in the entire frigging world until Germany and Japan came along after they rebuilt after WWII. Plus now with a plethora of new and unconstitutional welfare spending? Sorry, but this is exclusively the Left's fault.
Click to expand...

Trump cut taxes on the wealthy. Bush did it a couple times. Reagan did it. All long after the scenario, you describe.
Welfare spending drops when the economy is doing well. However the Repub tax cuts keep piling up the debt., just as they are designed to. Your math and logic are terrible. The debt has been laid at the feet of the tax cuts by the CBO. You are completely wrong again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top