Increased taxes on high income

Originally posted by moon1969
Hopefully, now with America having increased political capital against the Tea Party, in the next few months Boehner will let a budget go to the House Floor that has increased income tax rates on high income.

Also votes on (1) immigration reform and (2) universal background checks on gun purchases. Let's cross our fingers.

How much money needs to be taken in from the rich in order to sustain trillion dollar deficits?

Are you concerned that the spending levels are too high in comparison to incoming revenue, or are you simply motivated by coveting the rich?

If you took every last dime Americans have, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the debt in the US.

Originally posted by whodey
How much money needs to be taken in from the rich in order to sustain trillion dollar deficits?

Are you concerned that the spending levels are too high in comparison to incoming revenue, or are you simply motivated by coveting the rich?

If you took every last dime Americans have, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the debt in the US.

The income gains by the top 1% have been massive, while the rest of us maintain or drop in income.

The only feasible way to seriously reduce the deficit (and ultimately the debt) without hurting the economy is a balanced approach of spending cuts and revenue increases. Simple math.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
They've been brainwashed by right wing media.

Its astonishing, it really is, the more i think of it the more astonishing it becomes, people arguing against essentially their own interests. The arguments that they have proffered seem to be based on some kind of morality, for example getting something that you never worked for, when in fact many of the richest individuals i dare say have inherited vast wealth and have not worked a day for it, or its as immoral to take from a rich person as it is to give it to a poor person, really, is it? In what sense is it immoral to give to someone who might benefit from it rather than someone who has benefited and will continue to benefit? Strange, really out of this world psychedelic weird reasoning. I cannot emphasize enough how bewildering it is, to see people actually argue against their own interests, its just hard to believe really, I am gobsmacked to be honest. Is propaganda really so powerful that it can make people argue against their own interests?

Originally posted by whodey
How much money needs to be taken in from the rich in order to sustain trillion dollar deficits?

Are you concerned that the spending levels are too high in comparison to incoming revenue, or are you simply motivated by coveting the rich?

If you took every last dime Americans have, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the debt in the US.

have you considered a job for the Daily Mail, they do sensationalistic journalism also, devoid of substance, without basis in fact and pandering to the emotions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its astonishing, it really is, the more i think of it the more astonishing it becomes, people arguing against essentially their own interests. The arguments that they have proffered seem to be based on some kind of morality, for example getting something that you never worked for, when in fact many of the richest individuals i dare say have inherite ...[text shortened]... st. Is propaganda really so powerful that it can make people argue against their own interests?

its immoral to take from a rich person and give it to a poor person, really, is it? -robbie carrobie

Its called theft robbie.
Theft is pretty much considered immoral world wide.

Originally posted by utherpendragon

its immoral to take from a rich person and give it to a poor person, really, is it? -robbie carrobie

Its called theft robbie.
Theft is pretty much considered immoral world wide.

so lets get this, you are arguing that taxation is theft, every time i submit my self assessment, pay national insurance contributions, the government is in fact stealing from me,

why dont you file a law suit and take the government to court for stealing your money Uther, that's right because to sate that its stealing is ludicrous,

any more out of this world bat crazy arguments that those who are opposed to a redistribution of wealth through taxation, against their own interests have to proffer?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so lets get this, you are arguing that taxation is theft, every time i submit my self assessment, pay national insurance contributions, the government is in fact stealing from me,

why dont you file a law suit and take the government to court for stealing your money Uther, that's right because to sate that its stealing is ludicrous,

any more o ...[text shortened]... sed to a redistribution of wealth through taxation, against their own interests have to proffer?

"redistribution of wealth " is theft. Plain and simple. Why is that so hard for you to you understand ?

edit ( I never said taxation is theft,within reason ofcourse)

Originally posted by utherpendragon
"redistribution of wealth " is theft. Plain and simple. Why is that so hard for you to you understand ?

edit ( I never said taxation is theft,within reason ofcourse)

last time i looked taxation was not stealing, let me know when the situation changes. We are talking of a redistribution of wealth through taxation, or at least i am.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
last time i looked taxation was not stealing, let me know when the situation changes. We are talking of a redistribution of wealth through taxation, or at least i am.

I think the phrase ' redistribution of wealth' is what we are getting hung up on.
Not 'taxation'. Atleast as far as I am concerned.

Originally posted by moon1969
The income gains by the top 1% have been massive, while the rest of us maintain or drop in income.

The only feasible way to seriously reduce the deficit (and ultimately the debt) without hurting the economy is a balanced approach of spending cuts and revenue increases. Simple math.

Well the leadership of the country has lead us to this place, they say one
thing and yet we see other things actually occurring. So lets do a balanced
approach by balancing the percentage of taxes upon all people within the
country so that everyone is paying their fair share.
Kelly

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the people here arguing against a re-distribution of wealth through taxation against what can only be described as their own interests is a strange phenomena indeed. Someone care to explain it to me?

I'm not wealthy by any measure so a bit of wealth redistribution might work out in my favor economically.

Yes, in my favor economically but not ethically, it's going to be a struggle for you to understand this robbie, but I believe having a clear conscience is preferable to taking someones wealth from them just because they have more.

The burglar that creeps in your house at night improving his economic position simply because he thinks you can afford it is actually doing harm to himself in ways that he refuses to look at. This is the dilemma facing all 'wealth re-distributionists' KN, T, moon, Kmax they daren't take a look, they daren't try some introspection because like the burglar they're going to find something horrible within themselves. Mean spiritedness, envy, and a low opinion of their fellow man especially those that show more integrity then themselves.

Can the burglar steal from those he respects?

Originally posted by normbenign
This is a practically infant phenomenon. When it lasts for a couple of centuries, I'll give it some thought. In the meantime, we have the Soviet and Nazi experiments, Fascism in Italy, failures in Spain and Greece, North Korea vs. S. Korea, and Communist Mainland China vs. Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

It's already lasted a lifetime; the Swedish Social Democrats came to power in 1932. If there was an example of a pure free market economy that had lasted that long, you'd probably be shouting about from the rooftops!

Failures in Spain and Greece stem mainly from those countries adopting an unsuitable currency. Incidentally, Spain is scarcely a social democracy; its welfare state is the smallest of all EU-15 countries.

South Korea and Taiwan do not support an argument for minimal government intervention: they are successful examples of state-directed, or at least state-supported capitalism (as Japan has also been in the postwar era). Hong Kong of course has been closer to a genuine free market, but the normal rules don't apply to city states.

The Nazi and Soviet tyrannies are so far removed from the civilised norms of Scandinavian social democracy that it's not clear why you even choose to mention them. Perhaps you were just determined to violate Godwin's Law?

Originally posted by normbenign
Because you don't pay for the service when it is delivered, that doesn't make it free. Somebody pays, so it isn't free. That is the goal of every con man, to separate the benefit from the cost.

If these institutions were privately run, they'd almost certainly be run for profit. Being state-run, they need only aspire to break even at most. Actually, I personally don't approve of free admission to museums; it's pretty much unique to Britain; most other countries levy a small charge. But it's difficult to see how something that aims only to break even could work out more expensive than something that aims to make a profit.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
But it's difficult to see how something that aims only to break even could work out more expensive than something that aims to make a profit.

No need to strain the brain T, because you find something "difficult to see" is no justification for forcing your values on your fellow man. After all a profit is only the difference between what something costs to produce and what that product is worth to someone else.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
they are successful examples of state-directed, or at least state-supported capitalism (as Japan has also been in the postwar era).

Got to love that state supported capitalism (Translation: Not capitalism) and state directed capitalism (Translation: Not capitalism) Japans debt, 134% of GDP, oh yes, all they need is a bit more 'state direction' and a bit more 'state support' and they'll go booooooommmmm.

Edit: That's the IMF stats as of 2012, the CIA rates them worse than Zimbabwe and Greeece, nice example of state support and state direction.