DNC

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Define poor?

[SubGod22]

Why punish people for being successful? The "rich", also are the ones, for the most part, that create jobs and pay the rest of us who aren't rich. But lets just tax the **** out of them anyway. Do you want to be like France and tax them at 75%? This whole attacking the rich thing is dumb.

[pinstripers]

Fair? Like medals for participation?

[SB Shock]

Define poor?

Right after you define rich. You afraid?

[WuDrWu]

Class warfare is not wanting the rich to pay the same tax rate they paid in the 1990s. Where was all the crying about class warfare back then?

People who pay the "vast majority of taxes" (in nominal dollars) also have the vast majority of the wealth, have the vast majority of the income, use the vast majority of the resources, and enjoy the vast majority of the political power in this country. Makes logical sense to me.

Ok, we have freeloaders taking advantage of our social safety nets. I admit that, and it angers me. We should do something about it. But just as much, we have trust fund babies who haven't worked a damn day in their lives who are paying a lower tax rate than my "working class" parents did, who supported a family of four on no more than $30,000 a year. Tell me what's fair about that?

Wanna get rid of the freeloaders, fine by me. But holy cow, let's not hold the rich people up on some benevolent pedestal and blindly believe that if we make their lives easier, they'll reward us "little people" with jobs or whatever. Somehow the Republican Party--which used to be a party of common sense--has practically brainwashed its voters into thinking that what's good for the wealthy is good for everyone else, and if we just pander to them we'll all be better off. Guess what, rich people aren't "job creators", consumers are. Let's gear our economic policies towards them. That's not "class warfare," that's "common sense."

We don't have a "class warfare" problem in this country. We have a "class envy" problem in this country.

RMS, I'm sorry, I don't mean to pick on you, but let's deal with some facts, and not what you've been listening to wherever you get your information.

Why are you so excited about getting the rich to pay the same rate they did in the 90s? When did the 90s become fair? Were the 30s fair? When was fair?

The rich do NOT use the vast majority of the resources. There aren't enough of them, and rarely are they getting welfare, so that's patently false. The poor, since there are TONS more of them, use the VAST majority of the resources. They are also the ones taking money. Taking money is NOT the same thing as paying a lower tax rate. I don't know when this little game was hatched, but they are 2 different things.

We do NOT have just as many trust fund babies who haven't worked a day in their life and who are paying a lower tax rate than your working class parents. It's not close. It's not even far. It's 1000s of miles apart. AND as to the 15% CGT or AMT, very few, if any, people making 40k today are paying 15%. That's a lie. Compare apples to apples. Now, I don't, and I suspect the vast majority of high income earners understand loopholes need to be closed. No problem there. But those are the errors of the people trying to pick winners and losers. Make it simple. You tell me how paying nothing is fair. Paying anything, even 15%, is MORE than fair, when compared to families paying nothing their entire lives.

We're already demanding the top 1% pay 50%+ of the bills. How much do you want them to pay? 60%? 75% Tell me when enough is enough.

Wealth is GOOD. It's not bad. Say it with me so it can get through to you. Wealth is good. Not every wealthy person is a criminal. In fact most aren't. The vast majority aren't. Some are, I grant you that.

Rich people are job creators. A poor person has never given a person a job. I understand your point, but it's theory. The rich are still going to hire the people. I'm sorry you don't like it...neither does the President. The problem is the alternative is the end of freedom.

[WuDrWu]

But the real issue is this:

This "class warfare", trying to have the discussion about the rich "paying their fair share" is a shell game. It's the 3 card monty of the Democratic party. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Because you can tax the top 1% (which includes a ton of people making $250k) at 100%, take ALL their money, and you still cannot balance the budget for 1 year, much less pay down the debt. Now what do you do?

THIS IS A SPENDING PROBLEM. IT IS AN ENTITLEMENT PROBLEM. IT IS AN AUSTERITY PROBLEM. Nothing is going to be fixed unless we spend less, and anyone that tells you differently is a liar or a moron.

But as long as you keep talking about taxing the rich, you play into their grubby little power hungry hands.

[1979Shocker]

Because you can tax the top 1% (which includes a ton of people making $250k) at 100%, take ALL their money, and you still cannot balance the budget for 1 year, much less pay down the debt. Now what do you do?

The lower end of the top 1% was at around $340,000 as of October of last year.

Edit: I just Googled again and as of last month the low end is above $400,000. I think that is AGI.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I have a feeling @SB Shock:, that you're trying to back me into a corner by getting me to define "rich" as some sort of absolute value, just like earlier you wanted me to define exactly what I'm willing to pay extra in taxes to help get this country out of debt. My point by asking you to define poor is that these concepts are undefinable in black and white terms. The dictionary defines rich as "possessing great wealth or possessions." That's as far as I can go as well. Sorry.

@WuDrWu:, don't worry about picking on me my friend! I'm a lefty posting on a message board based in the heart of Libertarian Country--I know what I'm getting myself into, and it's a hornet's nest! :) But you righties are good debaters and I get a kick out of this, so no worries! You guys make me think harder about my beliefs and help me understand your side of the fence a little better, and ultimately that's what this is all about, as we're never going to change each other's minds. But I do take issue with your version of the "facts." Do you get them all from Fox News or are you one of the few Republicans anymore who can actually think for yourself? I hope it's the latter, because they are WAY too many of the former.

Our tax system is based on the concept of the "ability to pay." Whether you agree with that concept or not is the real root of our discussion. I agree with it and think it's fair. The concept is simple, the more you are "able to afford" taxes, the more you pay. When the income tax was first levied in its present form in the US, the idea in part was to check the growing power of the wealthy. It's interesting that over time, it has been spun into--what do you guys call it, a "penalty on success" or something like that. It's not a freaking penalty guys. I know some people believe that they "built it themselves," without any help from anyone else or the amazing system we have in this country, and they are the ones who most need to be reminded about Luke 12:48, and the ones who most need to be given a little lesson in humility.

I never once said wealth is bad, and I never will. Wealth isn't bad, but greed is, and that's a misunderstanding responsible for a lot of the differences between our two sides.

Finally, rich people aren't job creators. Say it with me so it can get through to you. Rich people may "hire" people, but remember that they do so only for one reason--because other people are buying their products and services. I've never seen a rich person hire someone else simply so they can benevolently help our unemployment rate. So who's the real job creator--the rich guy who is responding to consumer demand, or the consumers creating the demand--the vast majority of which are middle class. Doc, you are a job creator just as much as I am. Congratulations!

Lastly, I will provide a link. It's to a famous speech given by Teddy Roosevelt (btw, one of the many Republicans I'd vote for because he's a real Republican, not one of those guys today who only call themselves Republican). His words are moving and he speaks about abuses of the wealthy and powerful, of big business, of his support of a graduated income tax. The Republican Party should do a little soul searching and become the party of Lincoln and TR (hell, even Eisenhower) again--these guys have got to be rolling over in their graves because of what it has become.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501

[pinstripers]

Consumers do not create jobs. Please think about it.

[SB Shock]

Sorry RMS - frankly it is people like you that scare me - you really believe it. A sign of God's judgement is when God gives you over to the desires of your heart and we no longer use wisdom to make good and righteous choicse. Boys and girls - we are there. The fed is printing money as fast as the presses will run, and it looks like we have a majority of american who really believe we don't have a spending problem, but a tax revenue problem......[sigh]

[Capitol Shock II]

Our credit rating took another hit today....not surprisingly, nobody but Fox business is reporting it. Interesting to read the reasoning behind the downgrade...Thanks again Ben.

[1979Shocker]

Our credit rating took another hit today....not surprisingly, nobody but Fox business is reporting it. Interesting to read the reasoning behind the downgrade...Thanks again Ben.

Maybe it's because the others had already reported it. You made your post 6 hours ago and a Google search showed that CNBC had already reported the credit rating cut 4 hours before that. And actually Foxnews had it 6 hours before your post. So others were also reporting it.

[shox1989]

Sorry RMS - frankly it is people like you that scare me - you really believe it. A sign of God's judgement is when God gives you over to the desires of your heart and we no longer use wisdom to make good and righteous choicse. Boys and girls - we are there. The fed is printing money as fast as the presses will run, and it looks like we have a majority of american who really believe we don't have a spending problem, but a tax revenue problem......[sigh]

We have both. We definitely have a spending problem but we also have a revenue problem. Federal income tax is the lowest it has been in 60 years and spending is higher than ever. It doesn't make any sense.

If we really want to get our country back in good financial shape we need to cut spending and raise taxes. But no politician really wants to tell us this.

[SB Shock]

We have both. We definitely have a spending problem but we also have a revenue problem. Federal income tax is the lowest it has been in 60 years and spending is higher than ever. It doesn't make any sense.

But Revenue is higher, even in 2011 during the economic recession.

Capture.JPG

If we really want to get our country back in good financial shape we need to cut spending and raise taxes. But no politician really wants to tell us this.

Why do you need a politician to tell you any of this - you need to elect Politicians who are not going to go to Washington to spend their way to re-election.

Revenue under Bush was at all time high and growing at the strongest rate - but our politicians didn't even have any discipline to slow the increase in spending so we wouldn't add more to the deficit. Then after the recession in 2009 - Obama just keeps spending like it doesn't matter.

Capture2.JPG

After all this - what really makes you think that if you do raise taxes that these politicians won't just go ahead and spend?

It not rocket science, if you revenue is X then your spending (y) needs to be either y < x or y= x

[RoyalShock]

Finally, rich people aren't job creators. Say it with me so it can get through to you. Rich people may "hire" people, but remember that they do so only for one reason--because other people are buying their products and services. I've never seen a rich person hire someone else simply so they can benevolently help our unemployment rate. So who's the real job creator--the rich guy who is responding to consumer demand, or the consumers creating the demand--the vast majority of which are middle class. Doc, you are a job creator just as much as I am. Congratulations!

Who first invested the resources to develop the product the consumer is purchasing? Who is taking the financial risk to expand their ability to produce more? The consumer bears no risk. It was the businessman/manufacturer/inventor/etc. who created the environment for the creation of jobs, not the consumer.

Why even say "I've never seen a rich person hire someone else simply so they can benevolently help our unemployment rate"? Do consumers buy products and services so they can "benevolently help our unemployment rate"? No. You pretty much contradicted your own theory.