Tax the Rich

[ghettopalmetto]

pulling the race card has got to be the new Godwin's law........

What else did Coracle mean by his post? Certainly, he didn't mean to say that Manhattanites or San Franciscans or Washingtonians vote Democrat because they're all eating mayonnaise sandwiches.

[rb336]

Italy has the third highest GDP in the Eurozone, Behind only Germany, and France. Spain is right behind Italy. Britain's GDP is higher than Italy's but they are not in the Eurozone. Britains GDP is only about 10% larger than Italy's.

yes, but Italy and Spain are also very deep in debt [[and GDP per capita is essentially the same as the mean for all eurozone companies - Austria and the Benelux countries kick the rest of Europes arses in that context), and as i said, to a lesser extent than Portugal and Greece. One day I hope to buy Portugal

[Occurrence]

Yeah? Even if you were down to your last 100 bucks, and you needed $200 to buy a new pair of shoes for a job interview?

You'd still cut up your credit card, just so you could take pride in your destitution?

No wonder we're fucked.

No, I don't have a credit card, never have, never will.

Just like our Government, I piss money away and I'm bad at managing myself. Which is fine, I've come to live with that. Know who you are, more people should learn that. It's not a good idea for me to have a credit card.

[firstandten]

the problem with government spending, is that the government doesn't produce anything to "earn" its money that it spends, its merely taking from one pocket and putting it into another, net gain on spending is limited.... it may work short term but we are way past the priming the economic pump stage.......

and really, do you think that giving the government MORE money to spend that they will be any more fiscally responsible.... a fool and his money are soon parted.....

You have a poor understanding of what government spending is about. Government spending is not about building widgets to sell to the consumer. Thats better left to private enterprise. But government creates the means, the infrastruture, the policies and sometimes even the financing so that the companies can compete in a somewhat fair environment in order to build those widgets. Government spending also creates the social safety net to protect us and to prevent a sho nuff revolution from breaking out [[not a we shall overcome revolution but a shooting one).

Government spending creates investments [[education, infrastructure etc) that you may not see next week or next year but without it will eventually make us a third world nation.

Actually gov't has been taking in less in revenues.

I'm actually disappointed that so many of you have such a simplistic view of the function of gov't and would prefer to believe the Reagan version of gov't as the welfare mother picking up her check at the welfare office driving a cadillac. Thats such BS but the right wing just eats that crap up.

And where the right wing wants to have their cake and eat it to is in the area of the military. The military takes up a huge chunk of the federal budget but thats " good spending" the rest of gov't spending is " bad spending" and you want to separate that out like the military is not part of gov't.

So go head hire Blackwater or some other private army to fight our wars so they can walk right off the battlefield when we miss giving them that paycheck because we ran out of money.

[ghettopalmetto]

yes, but Italy and Spain are also very deep in debt [[and GDP per capita is essentially the same as the mean for all eurozone companies - Austria and the Benelux countries kick the rest of Europes arses in that context), and as i said, to a lesser extent than Portugal and Greece. One day I hope to buy Portugal

From what I understand, a good deal of Spain's debt is due to its construction of a nationwide high speed rail system, which will pay dividends over time.

I'll take that over debt due to endless wars and tax cuts for the wealthiest.

[Goose]

You have a poor understanding of what government spending is about. Government spending is not about building widgets to sell to the consumer. Thats better left to private enterprise. But government creates the means, the infrastruture, the policies and sometimes even the financing so that the companies can compete in a somewhat fair environment in order to build those widgets. Government spending also creates the social safety net to protect us and to prevent a sho nuff revolution from breaking out [[not a we shall overcome revolution but a shooting one).

Government spending creates investments [[education, infrastructure etc) that you may not see next week or next year but without it will eventually make us a third world nation.

Actually gov't has been taking in less in revenues.

I'm actually disappointed that so many of you have such a simplistic view of the function of gov't and would prefer to believe the Reagan version of gov't as the welfare mother picking up her check at the welfare office driving a cadillac. Thats such BS but the right wing just eats that crap up.

And where the right wing wants to have their cake and eat it to is in the area of the military. The military takes up a huge chunk of the federal budget but thats " good spending" the rest of gov't spending is " bad spending" and you want to separate that out like the military is not part of gov't.

So go head hire Blackwater or some other private army to fight our wars so they can walk right off the battlefield when we miss giving them that paycheck because we ran out of money.

I'm aware of what goverrnment spending is and how in totality it is out of control.

What you fail to take into your equation is where the money comes from. It's either TAKEN in the form of taxes from people who in my opinion know how to spend their money better, or its CREATED by the fed, a few clicks of the mouse and the central banks have more money and our dollar is suddenly worth less, or its BORROWED, to the point where China owns us...

the government doesn't GET it's money to spend by EARNING it......

[antongast]

people who in my opinion know how to spend their money better

Better for whom?

or its CREATED by the fed, a few clicks of the mouse and the central banks have more money and our dollar is suddenly worth less

This is a bad thing...why, exactly? I mean, hyperinflation is a serious problem, but small increases in the inflation rate can actually help spur short-term economic growth, which IMO is what we need right now.

or its BORROWED, to the point where China owns us...

That's not how it works. China is investing in US debt because it's a good investment, not because they want to take us over. It's capitalism, not nationalism.

the government doesn't GET it's money to spend by EARNING it......

No, but you EARN your money within a framework provided by the government, and you owe your ability to EARN to the existence of that framework, so the least you could do is help pay for it. The more money you EARN, the more invested in the framework you are, and the more of your EARNINGS you should shell out to help prop it up.

[coracle]

'Not that it's any of your business, but I've paid well into five figures to the federal government this year. The only time I feel ripped-off is when I remember that some of that money went toward your education."[/QUOTE]

Sorry if my note touched a nerve gpal. Humor with loose references to potential reality can do that to you if you have none; but nevertheless a firm thank you for the help in paying for my education with your five figures.

[firstandten]

No, but you EARN your money within a framework provided by the government, and you owe your ability to EARN to the existence of that framework, so the least you could do is help pay for it. The more money you EARN, the more invested in the framework you are, and the more of your EARNINGS you should shell out to help prop it up.

Very well put ! The framework or "the commons" as Thom Hartmann likes to call it is the reason large corporations are able to make the profit that they do. As a matter of fact corporations tend to use an inordinate amount of the commons yet don't want to pay for it, AND they are the first to scream about over regulation when the gov't tries to correct the injustice that allowed them to abuse the system in the first place.

[ghettopalmetto]

yes, but Italy and Spain are also very deep in debt [[and GDP per capita is essentially the same as the mean for all eurozone companies - Austria and the Benelux countries kick the rest of Europes arses in that context), and as i said, to a lesser extent than Portugal and Greece. One day I hope to buy Portugal

More on the European thing. Yes, I know the source has a bias. But consider the FACTS he presents, which are decidedly unbiased:

It’s true that all European countries have more generous social benefits — including universal health care — and higher government spending than America does. But the nations now in crisis don’t have bigger welfare states than the nations doing well — if anything, the correlation runs the other way. Sweden, with its famously high benefits, is a star performer, one of the few countries whose G.D.P. is now higher than it was before the crisis. Meanwhile, before the crisis, “social expenditure” — spending on welfare-state programs — was lower, as a percentage of national income, in all of the nations now in trouble than in Germany, let alone Sweden.Oh, and Canada, which has universal health care and much more generous aid to the poor than the United States, has weathered the crisis better than we have.

...if you look around the world you see that the big determining factor for interest rates isn’t the level of government debt but whether a government borrows in its own currency. Japan is much more deeply in debt than Italy, but the interest rate on long-term Japanese bonds is only about 1 percent to Italy’s 7 percent. Britain’s fiscal prospects look worse than Spain’s, but Britain can borrow at just a bit over 2 percent, while Spain is paying almost 6 percent.

...austerity has been a failure everywhere it has been tried: no country with significant debts has managed to slash its way back into the good graces of the financial markets. For example, Ireland is the good boy of Europe, having responded to its debt problems with savage austerity that has driven its unemployment rate to 14 percent. Yet the interest rate on Irish bonds is still above 8 percent — worse than Italy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/op...l.html?_r=1&hp

[Zacha341]

Tax everyone! LOL! That's ultimately where we are heading.

[jerrytimes]

Yay! Raise the taxes on the rich which will give them less money to spend and create businesses which employ the average 'joe'. That's smart. I'm not a richie by any means, I'm just an average guy. My wife's cousin who is an engineer for GM has a very close friend that owned a large company in Michigan. He had a large house and his business employed over 500 people. 2/3's of his company was based in the Detroit area. Due to the combination of the economy and high/inflating taxes and increasing government regulation, his business went under. Bye bye 500 jobs, decent ones too. [[truckers, secretaries, dock workers ect...) He was in business for over 15 years and that's all gone. Sure.... lets raise those taxes and see how much that helps us.

On the same note, my taxes have increased dramatically since 2009 and I don't even make $50,000 a year.... they aren't only taxing the rich people. Last year I did the math and my taxes increased by 2.8% Might not sound like a lot, but I would have 2.8% more of my income to put into the economy. On an income of $40,000 thats over $1000

[jerrytimes]

Tax everyone! LOL! That's ultimately where we are heading.

They already do tax everyone. Maybe not income tax, but we all pay it. 6% sales. tobacco tax for smokers, gas tax, drivers license tabs and just a license are taxes and that's just a few.

[jerrytimes]

Someone made a comment about money going to others educations and it reminded me of this. A friend teaches at a local college that anyone can get into [[community college). There are students there that get money from the government to pay for classes and apparently they get that money after the 4th week or something like that. On average 35% of the students after getting the money, drop the class, keep the money and never pay their tuition. Nice.

Also, our tax money goes to the beautiful Michigan Bridge Card. I'm fine with food stamps, but there needs to be limitations. This woman the other day in 7-11 bought a couple of candy bars, 2 donuts, a slurpee, some cakes, and other junk food. It all came up to about $15. She paid with a bridge card which is annoying since there was no regular food in there. She walked out of the store and got into her 2009 or 2010 CHRYSLER 300! Are you effing kidding?

[oladub]

More on the European thing. Yes, I know the source has a bias. But consider the FACTS [[Paul Krugman) presents, which are decidedly unbiased:

What? Paul Krugman, Keynesian bankster cheerleader, decidedly unbiased? Never. Too bad he didn't see the bubbles created by his Keynesian printing press policies coming.

From what I've elsewhere been reading, Japan's economy has been in a funk since it has taken on so much debt, the Euro-zone has it's own problems, and Ireland's problems can be contrasted with Iceland's problems. In the latter case, Iceland told it's bankers and their owners to suck their losses up. Ireland, like the US, transferred its bankers' bad loans to the public debt. So, to some extent, Ireland's problems isn't high interest so much as why the country went broke and now has to charge high interest to attract funds.

Krugman was all for the Wall Street bankers' bailouts too, was he not? He shows up in this article seemingly contradicting things he has supported in the US. He still supports social welfare things but credits letting the banks go bust as being the key to Iceland righting itself.

"“Where everyone else bailed out the bankers and made the public pay the price, Iceland let the banks go bust and actually expanded its social safety net,” he wrote in a recent commentary in the New York Times.“Where everyone else was fixated on trying to placate international investors, Iceland imposed temporary controls on the movement of capital to give itself room to maneuver,” he said."
What Iceland Teaches Us: “Let Banks Fail”

[antongast]

Also, our tax money goes to the beautiful Michigan Bridge Card. I'm fine with food stamps, but there needs to be limitations. This woman the other day in 7-11 bought a couple of candy bars, 2 donuts, a slurpee, some cakes, and other junk food. It all came up to about $15. She paid with a bridge card which is annoying since there was no regular food in there.

So have you never in your life purchased or eaten an unhealthy snack food item? Or is the consumption of unhealthy snack food without being judged or criticized by others a privilege exclusively reserved for people whose income exceeds a certain threshold?

[Det_ard]

So have you never in your life purchased or eaten an unhealthy snack food item? Or is the consumption of unhealthy snack food without being judged or criticized by others a privilege exclusively reserved for people whose income exceeds a certain threshold?

This. If you're on the dole, no junk food for you.

[Trumpeteer]

I thought the purpose of providing our tax dollars for food was to try and make sure that at least those "on the dole" at least could buy food that was somewhat nourishing...NOT junk crap.

[antongast]

This. If you're on the dole, no junk food for you.

But why not? Is it a public health issue? Then why don't we want middle-class and wealthy people to be healthy as well? Is it an inefficient-use-of-tax-dollars issue? Bridge cards don't pay out extra benefits to people who buy large quantities of junk food, so the expenditure is the same either way. Or do you just like wagging your finger at poor people?

[TKshreve]

jerrytimes said:

My wife's cousin who is an engineer for GM has a very close friend that owned a large company in Michigan. He had a large house and his business employed over 500 people. 2/3's of his company was based in the Detroit area. Due to the combination of the economy and high/inflating taxes and increasing government regulation, his business went under. Bye bye 500 jobs, decent ones too. [[truckers, secretaries, dock workers ect...) He was in business for over 15 years and that's all gone. Sure.... lets raise those taxes and see how much that helps us.

Now why couldn't your "wife's cousins' close friend" simply reinvest his profits into the company [[i.e. - create jobs and/or support other businesses) and in effect minimize his tax burden? I'm assuming he had great earnings if his taxes were the reason he went under. Or was it government regulation? or was it the troubling economy? What was it ....... really?

On the same note, my taxes have increased dramatically since 2009 and I don't even make $50,000 a year.... they aren't only taxing the rich people. Last year I did the math and my taxes increased by 2.8% Might not sound like a lot, but I would have 2.8% more of my income to put into the economy. On an income of $40,000 thats over $1000

What caused your taxes to magically go up? The vagueness of your story certainly dampens the opinion.

[ghettopalmetto]

Yay! Raise the taxes on the rich which will give them less money to spend and create businesses which employ the average 'joe'. That's smart.

What are you, an indentured servant? Christ on toast, have some respect for yourself. You're ready to worship billionaires as gods, in the mere hopes that they bless you with some of the ash off their cigars.

Get a spine. You're no less of a man than the "rich". Is there anything inherently wrong with an "average joe" creating jobs??? Or must we expect the "rich" to do everything for us unwashed slobs?

My wife's cousin who is an engineer for GM has a very close friend that owned a large company in Michigan. He had a large house and his business employed over 500 people. 2/3's of his company was based in the Detroit area. Due to the combination of the economy and high/inflating taxes and increasing government regulation, his business went under.

Let's see...he's paying taxes, so clearly his company is profitable. His competitors face the same government regulations. Looks like what we're dealing with here is a businessman who lost his shirt, plain and simple. That's the free market, buddy. Not everyone who starts a business is any good at it.

[maxx]

coracle:
Much as I dislike even responding to your inanities. But please show the source of your statement that most super rich are Dems.

[TKshreve]

Someone made a comment about money going to others educations and it reminded me of this. A friend teaches at a local college that anyone can get into [[community college). There are students there that get money from the government to pay for classes and apparently they get that money after the 4th week or something like that. On average 35% of the students after getting the money, drop the class, keep the money and never pay their tuition. Nice.

Also, our tax money goes to the beautiful Michigan Bridge Card. I'm fine with food stamps, but there needs to be limitations. This woman the other day in 7-11 bought a couple of candy bars, 2 donuts, a slurpee, some cakes, and other junk food. It all came up to about $15. She paid with a bridge card which is annoying since there was no regular food in there. She walked out of the store and got into her 2009 or 2010 CHRYSLER 300! Are you effing kidding?

Sorry to keep singling you out jt.

I wholeheartedly agree with your issue here. Those who take advantage of our social safety nets are as much a public drain on society as those at the top who consolidate wealth and hold it hostage.

It is a poor use of federal money [[or public dollars - however full your glass is) on all fronts.

Which begs the question:

Do we need to do away with these systems, or streamline them by steaming out the fraud and abuses?

I am for the latter. Just like with Medicare, rampant fraud has undermined the integrity of the system. Why though? Well for one thing they just don't have enough people checking into potential fraudulent claims. Seems to me that would be a good area for our country to add some jobs too. Jobs that directly save tax dollars from going to waste. There is no question that our country has a shortage of watchdogs looking our for public interest, be it $$ or conflicts of interest or any other undermining behavior within the private sector and beyond.

But I still believe in fixing these items opposed to eradication.

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope John Paul II

[Det_ard]

But why not? Is it a public health issue? Then why don't we want middle-class and wealthy people to be healthy as well? Is it an inefficient-use-of-tax-dollars issue? Bridge cards don't pay out extra benefits to people who buy large quantities of junk food, so the expenditure is the same either way. Or do you just like wagging your finger at poor people?

If someone is so poor that their fellow citizens are required to provide them with food, they ought not be spending that money on treats. If they have enough money to afford treats, they don't need some or all of the bridge card money.

Why should some some working stiff who brown bags his lunch every day to save money have to pay for someone who's "poor" to buy treats?

[ghettopalmetto]

If someone is so poor that their fellow citizens are required to provide them with food, they ought not be spending that money on treats. If they have enough money to afford treats, they don't need some or all of the bridge card money.

Why should some some working stiff who brown bags his lunch every day to save money have to pay for someone who's "poor" to buy treats?

What you call "treats", they might call "dinner".

Nobody chastises you for dining out while we subsidize your mortgage. People who are so poor as to qualify for welfare have it tough enough. There's no need to pass judgment on them as well.