Tax Increases Are Not a Debt Solution

[Jack Springer]

I watched this video today. It made a lot of sense to me.

Please take the time to watch it -- I know it's long but the Senator makes a lot of good points. He doesn't name-call either.

We need real tax reform and a plan to keep us from continually having this problem.

If you're going to just make a comment without watching this and just trash the speaker or me -- go start your own thread.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTgdXN3ad04[/ame]

 

[BostonPirate]

Cutting tax loopholes that the wealthy corporations and millionaires use to NOT pay ANY taxes is NOT raising taxes.

It is getting them to finally stop leaching off of america and actually PAY TAXES OF ANY SORT.

You and yours are in a BIG minority on this JACK.

On taxes, the poll reported that roughly two out of three registered voters — 64 percent — would be in favor of increasing taxes on annual income over $250,000. President Obama reiterated in his deficit-reduction speech last week that he favored allowing taxes to rise on families in that income level.

Independents favored that plan of action at roughly the same percentage as the country at large, with more than eight in 10 Democrats also behind the idea. A majority of Republicans, 54 percent, opposed it.

The poll was conducted both before and after Obama’s Wednesday speech, with support for higher taxes on wealthier Americans picking up afterward.

Meanwhile, fully four in five registered voters oppose cutting Medicare and Medicaid. The House GOP’s fiscal 2012 budget, largely crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), makes fundamental long-term changes to both health entitlement programs, converting Medicaid into a block grant and turning Medicare into a type of voucher system.

Democrats (92 percent), Republicans (73 percent) and independents (75 percent) all opposed cuts to the two programs, the McClatchy-Marist poll found.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...axes-on-wealthy-leave-medicare-medicaid-alone

not that it would matter.

Cutting retirement and disability so that the Wealthy don't have to pay taxes is immoral and unamerican.

shame on you Jack Springer. You are acting like a partizan schill.

 

[BostonPirate]

I dont really get it? Why would raising the upper bracket tax rates cost jobs? What's tge theory behind that?

it wont cost anymore jobs than the cuts created...

Which would be Zilch

 

[BostonPirate]

And just to be clear here...

Logically can anyone tell me how increasing incoming revenue would NOT reduce the deficit?

This brainwashed idea that the repubs are peddling has been rejected by the american people. We have tried not raising taxes, and quite frankly, it isn't working out well.

However we DO know that when Reagan and Clinton did it, it worked very well.

 

[BostonPirate]

Closing loopholes is NOT the same as raising taxes.

especially on tax evaders

 

[Jack Springer]

I'm all for closing loopholes that were created to help one person or a small group of people.

I think (at least I hope) we've all read enough to know that if the upper 2% paid 100% taxes we would still not be able to fix this debt.

I don't like solving this with cuts in Social Security and Medicare either. It has to be a shared responsibility. The top limit os paying SS taxes should be eliminated -- not raising the retirement age to 70.

What company is going to hire someone who is 65 or 69. Heck they don't even hire the 50 year olds now.

Washington (both dem's and repub's) have to stop spending money to get votes.

 

[frankfrank]

He's misleading people into believing that raising taxes on the wealthy wouldn't have a significant impact on the deficit, which is untrue (by using his red herring argument of "100% != 1 year's deficit").

Actually, he's correct.

As soon as the Republicans go ahead and vote for tax increases on the wealthy, they'll sure-as-shit go ahead and create new massive bureaucracies to control all aspects of our morality - for example the Tennessee law that might send people to prison because they put something into public view that might "offend somebody" or opening massive inquiries when a woman has a miscarriage (to make sure she didn't have a secret abortion, in which case they want her to go to prison for life), etc.

Republicans have a lot of practice in growing government to exceed all budgets, not really any different at all from what Democrats do. Both are equally guilty, but Republicans are being disingenuous by claiming otherwise.

 

[chuck10x]

Ben Stein, Ultra Conservative Republican.
No choice but to raise taxes.

http://youtu.be/kWEo1TjLRI8

 

[CowboyBob]

What got us into this financial mess was the Bush tax cuts, the two wars he started and the unfunded Medicare Part D. All thanks to W.

Why wasn't the debt an issue when W was steering the boat? Where was the Republican outrage then?

They didn't have a problem raising the debt ceiling when Bush was destroying the economy.

 

[jackoroe]

What got us into this financial mess was the Bush tax cuts, the two wars he started and the unfunded Medicare Part D. All thanks to W.

Why wasn't the debt an issue when W was steering the boat? Where was the Republican outrage then?

They didn't have a problem raising the debt ceiling when Bush was destroying the economy.

Sorry Bob, they are the Obama tax cuts as of late last year. He signed them, he and the democrat majorities in the House and Senate approved them. They now own them.

All this nonsense about raising taxes on people who are already carrying the lion's share of the tax burden is ridiculous. The bottom 50% pay nothing in terms of income tax. We aren't talking about destitute people, but people with jobs who have the ability to pay. It's time for these freeloaders to get some skin in the game.

In terms of the Medicare drug giveaway, your 100% right. We shouldn't have given seniors the drugs. Both wars, you were right until 2007. Then the democrats went right along with Bush, so they own that expense as well.

In terms of this debt ceiling, let me quote Obama. I agree with him on this.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

 

[MoltenRock III]

All this nonsense about raising taxes on people who are already carrying the lion's share of the tax burden is ridiculous. The bottom 50% pay nothing in terms of income tax. We aren't talking about destitute people, but people with jobs who have the ability to pay. It's time for these freeloaders to get some skin in the game.

Firstly there's absolutely no way the USA can balance its budget with 9% unemployment, PERIOD. But I digress...

In order to balance the budget you must tax the upper ranks more, as the top 20% of earners hold 85% of the total net worth, and 93% of the financial wealth. The bottom 80% only hold 15% and 7% respectively. The top 20% have 62% of all the income, with the bottom 80% only getting 38%.

Given the US tax policy it does not in fact redistribute wealth. Wealth and income continue to be very concentrated. The USA is ranked 93rd in equality regarding income, falling between Iran (90th) and Mexico (107th).

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

 

[CowboyBob]

Sorry Bob, they are the Obama tax cuts as of late last year. He signed them, he and the democrat majorities in the House and Senate approved them. They now own them.

All this nonsense about raising taxes on people who are already carrying the lion's share of the tax burden is ridiculous. The bottom 50% pay nothing in terms of income tax. We aren't talking about destitute people, but people with jobs who have the ability to pay. It's time for these freeloaders to get some skin in the game.

In terms of the Medicare drug giveaway, your 100% right. We shouldn't have given seniors the drugs. Both wars, you were right until 2007. Then the democrats went right along with Bush, so they own that expense as well.

In terms of this debt ceiling, let me quote Obama. I agree with him on this.

No jack, Obama didn't want to, but had to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

The newly elected Republican majority made sure of that.

And you need to raise taxes on those that can afford them.

 

[jackoroe]

Firstly there's absolutely no way the USA can balance its budget with 9% unemployment, PERIOD. But I digress...

In order to balance the budget you must tax the upper ranks more, as the top 20% of earners hold 85% of the total net worth, and 93% of the financial wealth. The bottom 80% only hold 15% and 7% respectively. The top 20% have 62% of all the income, with the bottom 80% only getting 38%.

Given the US tax policy it does not in fact redistribute wealth. Wealth and income continue to be very concentrated. The USA is ranked 93rd in equality regarding income, falling between Iran (90th) and Mexico (107th).

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

We don't tax wealth. We tax income. The top 50% pay over 96% of income taxes. The bottom 50% are freeloaders. It's time for a flat tax so everyone pays their share.

 

[jackoroe]

No jack, Obama didn't want to, but had to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

The newly elected Republican majority made sure of that.

And you need to raise taxes on those that can afford them.

Sorry Bob, there was no republican majority in December 2010. Democrats had control of both houses and the president signed the bill. You guys own the tax cuts.

 

[MoltenRock III]

We don't tax wealth. We tax income. The top 50% pay over 96% of income taxes. The bottom 50% are freeloaders. It's time for a flat tax so everyone pays their share.

I've found that every "flat tax" proponent is woefully ignorant of what this would mean for their own tax situation, and by the very definition would wipe out virtually all of their own income deductions. It's quite easy to write off over $100,000 from one's AGI even with phase outs / deduction limitations. So while a "flat tax" of 20% may sound great to many, it likely will bite you in the ass more than the tax already does. The two main deductions that I've found flat tax proponents balking over removing are the "home" mortgage deduction and state/local/property tax deduction.

 

[JayQueer]

YES YES YES!!!!

We need to stop punishing people with high taxes! Lower taxes (for everyone)!

 

[Kulindahr]

He shows himself to be an idiot the moment he throws out the idea of raising taxes because that won't take care of the problem all by itself. That's moronic -- it's like saying don't eat anything at all because the can of soup you have won't get you through an entire week.

I'll take him up on his challenge, too: it's easy to get a tax increase to create jobs -- slap a 15% surtax on the top two brackets and use it to start up the WPA and/or CCC again.
How stupid does he think we are?

Though he's right about regulations. We could learn a lot from France, where to get all the permits for starting (my fave example) an "anything to oil" plant, you go to just one place, and fill out one set of forms, and you're going -- as opposed to the U.S., where you have forms for multiple federal agencies, multiple state agencies, multiple county agencies, and if inside city limits multiple municipal agencies.

And he's flat wrong right at the end, employing the usual fallacy about raising taxes: historically, we could ramp the tax rate on the top bracket up to between 33% and 50% without having a single visible effect on the economy.

Along the way he commits another typical fallacy, conflating businesses and individuals under "job creators", which allows him to lump corporations and individuals together as he talks about taxes. But they're two entirely different critters, as regards job creation -- in fact, three different critters, because we could raise taxes on the top bracket and not cost one job, cut taxes on corporations and hardly create any jobs -- except on (actual) small businesses, where cutting taxes will generate jobs because of one simple thing: almost without exception, a small business wants to be a larger business, or wants to do more for its current customers.


Sorry, Jack, but he's either a good liar or just another ignorant politician.

 

[BostonPirate]

Actually, we do tax wealth, Jack.

And this is all a lie. There are no tax increases on the table right now. Just cuts in loopholes and tax shelters.

Americans WANT this to happen overwhelmingly and they also BLAME the republicans and conservative most for causing it in the first place, and now blocking the wealthy from paying taxes. I want one simple answer from you JAck, as a human being, and as a friend.

What is more important, feeding children and giving care to the elderly, OR giving the wealthy a deduction on a summer home, a private jet, or any other obscenity they have.

The rich dont pay taxes and I want FIRST to hear why that is moral, and that is logical for our nation to do that.

 

[BostonPirate]

Sorry Bob, there was no republican majority in December 2010. Democrats had control of both houses and the president signed the bill. You guys own the tax cuts.

bullshit.

You think we all didn't live during that time?

Obama had to do it because of the fucking filibuster, and you are smart enough to know that.

You are better than that lie.

 

[Jack Springer]

So what's has the answer?

If we tax the upper 2% at maybe 60 to 80% -- will that solve the problem?