Are you one of the 53% ?

[Openmind]

As I have mentioned numerous times, the CBO has already stated you could tax the rich at 90% and it wouldn't balance the budget.

This idea that we don't need drastic spending cuts, and we can offset any pain with tax hikes has no basis in reality.

You also didn't answer my first question: Did your husband earn his paycheck and earn his job?

Again. . .you are talking EXTREMES!

I am not talking about "NOT NEEDING DRASTING SPENDING CUTS!" I did state we needed spending cuts, I just think the "drastic" part of it should focus more on corporate welfare than on social welfare.
I didn't say tax hikes could OFFSET the pain of those cuts. . .I said they would make the pain less profond, because some of the cuts may not have to be so drastic.
And OBVIOUSLY taxing the wealthy at 90% wouldn't offset the deficit. . .in the short term! First NO ONE proposed to tax the wealthy at 90% (although it has been done before!), second, the tax hikes proposes are TEMPORARY, while we are facing such a terrible economic downturn. Once the economy goes back up, the revenue will increase automatically (if there is no more Bush or Perry, or Romney, or Cain, or Bachmann new tax cuts for the wealthy!), and at that time the "special tax assessment" would disappear.

However, if we kept a much higher tax rate for the very wealthy (let's say, over $10 millions a year), for an extended period of time (let's say, 25 years), it certainly would make a BIG dent in the deficit!

And, why should I answer a question when you already know the answer, and you plan on using my honest (although subjective, as a wife) answer to try to prove a point that I totally disagree with?

It is not because people get an amazing income that the "deserve every penny of it," and should forget about others who haven't been as lucky, or as smart, or as supported in their venture as some others.

That is my answer. If it is not good enough for you. . .too bad!

 

[GenSeneca]

I just think the "drastic" part of it should focus more on corporate welfare than on social welfare.

How much do you believe we spend on "corporate welfare"? Some one had posted the total amount, I think it was around $92 billion. Even if we cut 100% of that, which I would be in favor of doing, that's simply not a significant enough cut when we are operating on a $1.6 trillion deficit.

How much do you believe we spend on "social welfare"? Try $2.6 TRILLION, more than two thirds of our entire budget.

However, if we kept a much higher tax rate for the very wealthy (let's say, over $10 millions a year), for an extended period of time (let's say, 25 years), it certainly would make a BIG dent in the deficit!

You make these outlandish statements all the time then refuse to back them up with anything of substance. When someone points out actual historical facts that contradict your claims you dismiss them as merely "opinions".

Where is your evidence that a higher top marginal rate would increase revenue as a % of GDP?

 

[dogtowner]

And OBVIOUSLY taxing the wealthy at 90% wouldn't offset the deficit. . .in the short term!

It wouldn't offset the deficit in any term without a vast reduction in spending and/or a major turnaround in private sector employment. But, as history tells us, such increases fail to deliver the revenues promised.

 

[BigRob]

Again. . .you are talking EXTREMES!

I am not talking about "NOT NEEDING DRASTING SPENDING CUTS!" I did state we needed spending cuts, I just think the "drastic" part of it should focus more on corporate welfare than on social welfare.
I didn't say tax hikes could OFFSET the pain of those cuts. . .I said they would make the pain less profond, because some of the cuts may not have to be so drastic.
And OBVIOUSLY taxing the wealthy at 90% wouldn't offset the deficit. . .in the short term! First NO ONE proposed to tax the wealthy at 90% (although it has been done before!), second, the tax hikes proposes are TEMPORARY, while we are facing such a terrible economic downturn. Once the economy goes back up, the revenue will increase automatically (if there is no more Bush or Perry, or Romney, or Cain, or Bachmann new tax cuts for the wealthy!), and at that time the "special tax assessment" would disappear.


However, if we kept a much higher tax rate for the very wealthy (let's say, over $10 millions a year), for an extended period of time (let's say, 25 years), it certainly would make a BIG dent in the deficit!

Can you back any of this up with actual numbers or economic data? Otherwise...thanks for sharing your opinion.

And, why should I answer a question when you already know the answer, and you plan on using my honest (although subjective, as a wife) answer to try to prove a point that I totally disagree with?

It is not because people get an amazing income that the "deserve every penny of it," and should forget about others who haven't been as lucky, or as smart,
or as supported in their venture as some others.

That is my answer. If it is not good enough for you. . .too bad!

So you obviously feel he did deserve it, and I am sure he did. However, I am sure the company would have been happy to pay him less had he asked for it...

That said, ALL people benefit from society..like roads, education etc. Take Steve Jobs for example, did he benefit more from society because he was able to use roads etc to sell his products, or did society benefit more from his products? I think the answer is clear.

 

[Openmind]

Can you back any of this up with actual numbers or economic data? Otherwise...thanks for sharing your opinion.



So you obviously feel he did deserve it, and I am sure he did. However, I am sure the company would have been happy to pay him less had he asked for it...

That said, ALL people benefit from society..like roads, education etc. Take Steve Jobs for example, did he benefit more from society because he was able to use roads etc to sell his products, or did society benefit more from his products? I think the answer is clear.

What I am saying, as if you didn't know, is that my husband deserved to be well paid for the job he was doing, for all the international trips he was taking, that kept him away from his family at least 18 to 20 days a months, and for his hard work.

He deserved to be paid between $300,000 and $450,000 a year (all inclusive) if you compare his salary to his boss's salary that was at least 5 times greater than that.
He didn't deserve to be paid that much if you compare it to the nurse who works double shift in a hospital and has the responsibility of HUMAN beings, instead of MACHINES. . .but only brings home between $60,000 and $80,000 a year.

And the idea of "refusing" a higher salary is obviously ridiculous, especially since, in this "greed" culture, people are automatically thought to be worth what they make! Which is equally ridiculous!

In terms of backing up what I said re: tax revenues and corporate welfare, I have done so often, but when I provide factual data, it is either totally ignored or POOPOOED!

However, I will try one more time to show what corporate welfare REALLY costs us by quoting a detailled article. This article dates from 1994, and provides a test and a clear definition of what corporate welfare consists of. I hope you find it useful to take the test first (the answers are provided). If you would like, I will also look for a more updated set of data, although we are all aware that it has only gotten worse since 1994!

www.sociology.vt.edu/course/socprobs/corporatewelfare.htmlCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
In class and in the text, we've talked a bit about corporate welfare. .... give us some basis for assessing how corporate welfare matches up with “social” ... In 1994, the United States spent $104.3 billion on corporate welfare, while spending only

 

[Openmind]

May I suggest that you give less money to the Fed - even at a loss it is still a gain.

Here is a story about the "original" 53%er!

Interesting!

It's just a "photoshop" creation!

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/ld31t/proof_that_...

 

[BigRob]

What I am saying, as if you didn't know, is that my husband deserved to be well paid for the job he was doing, for all the international trips he was taking, that kept him away from his family at least 18 to 20 days a months, and for his hard work.

I don't dispute he didn't deserve...but what makes someone who is not doing all of that deserve it?

He deserved to be paid between $300,000 and $450,000 a year (all inclusive) if you compare his salary to his boss's salary that was at least 5 times greater than that.
He didn't deserve to be paid that much if you compare it to the nurse who works double shift in a hospital and has the responsibility of HUMAN beings, instead of MACHINES. . .but only brings home between $60,000 and $80,000 a year.

Economics 101 here...if you don't want to accept a job that pays $60,000 a year, don't go into that profession. Is the supply of labor declines, they will have to make a change in how they recruit etc (which includes higher pay).

I really agreed with Gov. Christie when a teacher was talking to him saying they were underpaid...the simple response is "don't be a teacher then." We blast politicians if they give themselves a raise (often because they "knew what they were getting into when they ran"), and somehow this does not apply in our own lives?

And the idea of "refusing" a higher salary is obviously ridiculous, especially since, in this "greed" culture, people are automatically thought to be worth what they make! Which is equally ridiculous!

If someone truly felt it was ridiculous, they would have taken less money.

In terms of backing up what I said re: tax revenues and corporate welfare, I have done so often, but when I provide factual data, it is either totally ignored or POOPOOED!

However, I will try one more time to show what corporate welfare REALLY costs us by quoting a detailled article. This article dates from 1994, and provides a test and a clear definition of what corporate welfare consists of. I hope you find it useful to take the test first (the answers are provided). If you would like, I will also look for a more updated set of data, although we are all aware that it has only gotten worse since 1994!

The link didn't work, but think about this logically.

The White House won't give details on how much revenue this "Buffett Rule" is supposed to raise...yet Ezra Klein (who is absurd, which is why I am going with him here), argued that a similar proposal (a 5.4% surtax on the rich) in the past was scored to generate around $460 billion over a ten year period.

Think about this. Our yearly budget deficit is 1.4 trillion (roughly), and this tax on the rich is going to generate (generously) $50 billion a year? Great...where is the other 1.35 trillion?

 

[Openmind]

I don't dispute he didn't deserve...but what makes someone who is not doing all of that deserve it?



Economics 101 here...if you don't want to accept a job that pays $60,000 a year, don't go into that profession. Is the supply of labor declines, they will have to make a change in how they recruit etc (which includes higher pay).

I really agreed with Gov. Christie when a teacher was talking to him saying they were underpaid...the simple response is "don't be a teacher then." We blast politicians if they give themselves a raise (often because they "knew what they were getting into when they ran"), and somehow this does not apply in our own lives?


If someone truly felt it was ridiculous, they would have taken less money.



The link didn't work, but think about this logically.

The White House won't give details on how much revenue this "Buffett Rule" is supposed to raise...yet Ezra Klein (who is absurd, which is why I am going with him here), argued that a similar proposal (a 5.4% surtax on the rich) in the past was scored to generate around $460 billion over a ten year period.

Think about this. Our yearly budget deficit is 1.4 trillion (roughly), and this tax on the rich is going to generate (generously) $50 billion a year? Great...where is the other 1.35 trillion?

This link didn't work?

www.sociology.vt.edu/course/socprobs/corporatewelfare.html

 

[BigRob]

This link didn't work?

www.sociology.vt.edu/course/socprobs/corporatewelfare.html

That one does, the first one did not however.

 

[Openmind]

That one does, the first one did not however.

Sorry about that. . .but now you have it!

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, but earning a yearly income of 380k is not the same as just having a million dollars.

I agree.

I have tried to steer the conversation back to the question of income rather than worth since the 1%ers are usually defined by income.

 

[Dr.Who]

The Truth About "Robber Barons"

As common as it is to speak of "robber barons," most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors.
...
The American economy has always included a mix of market and political entrepreneurs — self-made men and women as well as political connivers and manipulators. And sometimes, people who have achieved success as market entrepreneurs in one period of their lives later become political entrepreneurs. But the distinction between the two is critical to make, for market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not — it is neomercantilism.​

Are you suggesting that the atrocities of the industrial revolution were not the result of marketeers but of government policies that assisted some to take advantage of others?

I spent a few minutes looking for examples of robber barrons who abused people and found no good examples - probably needed to spend more time. But it makes one wonder if at an earlier time with less regulation maybe there was actually less political entrepreneurial abuse than now.

I did find it interesting that the robber barrons were originally all bankers and that is exactly the group that our founding fathers feared second to the gov.

 

[Dr.Who]

Again. . .you are talking EXTREMES!

I am not talking about "NOT NEEDING DRASTING SPENDING CUTS!" I did state we needed spending cuts, I just think the "drastic" part of it should focus more on corporate welfare than on social welfare.

The US is in peril and we do need extremes.

We need to cut 100% of all corporate welfare and 100% of all social welfare - neither one is consistent with the rule of law, fairness, or the constitution.

Businesses would do just fine with zero welfare and the economy would do better without it. Then in a better and more fair economy the poor would do better too. With less poor and more fairness and the gov focusing on stopping crimes charity would be more than adequate to handle all the social ills we face.

I didn't say tax hikes could OFFSET the pain of those cuts. . .I said they would make the pain less profond, because some of the cuts may not have to be so drastic.

And OBVIOUSLY taxing the wealthy at 90% wouldn't offset the deficit. . .in the short term! First NO ONE proposed to tax the wealthy at 90% (although it has been done before!), second, the tax hikes proposes are TEMPORARY, while we are facing such a terrible economic downturn. Once the economy goes back up, the revenue will increase automatically (if there is no more Bush or Perry, or Romney, or Cain, or Bachmann new tax cuts for the wealthy!), and at that time the "special tax assessment" would disappear.

Taxing the wealthy at a higher rate allows them to work with politicians in ways that are unfair to everyone else.

It is morally and constitutionally wrong to apply the laws of the country differently to different people.

And it hurts the economy causing all ships to go down with the tide.

However, if we kept a much higher tax rate for the very wealthy (let's say, over $10 millions a year), for an extended period of time (let's say, 25 years), it certainly would make a BIG dent in the deficit!

The longer the injustice continued the more it would hurt the poor.

It is not because people get an amazing income that the "deserve every penny of it,"

If they got it legally then they did in fact deserve it. show us a case where this is not true.

and should forget about others who haven't been as lucky, or as smart, or as supported in their venture as some others.

No they should not forget about others, they should also not be coerced to give money to the gov, money that very often never sees the light of day again.