19 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignIt would also help to make the rich in America pay there fair share in taxes. Technically the rich have the highest tax base, but there are so many loopholes that they end up paying very little. This would give some much needed cash to help balance the budget. Once this is done, our lawmakers need to stop spending like drunken sailors on there pet projects. It remains to be seen weather this will ever really happen. 😏
US National Debt is a staggering 10.6 Trillion, more than 3 times our annual budget.
Social Security at present just about breaks even, but has unfunded liabilities over the next 50 years that are projected to exceed total GNP.
Medicare is in even worse shape.
It is time for everyone to get real and start liking the life style we can afford inste ...[text shortened]... , tantamount to loading more passengers and deck chairs as she was already listing 25 degrees.
Originally posted by bill718That is mythology. The top 10% of earners pay about 90% of taxes. Squeezing more out of the supposed rich, only limits the amount of wealth that can be applied to production as capital. Hell during the Obama campaign the definition of rich started out at $250,000 a year, and was at the end down to about $100k. When the income tax was first passed the rich were those making $10K a year.
It would also help to make the rich in America pay there fair share in taxes. Technically the rich have the highest tax base, but there are so many loopholes that they end up paying very little. This would give some much needed cash to help balance the budget. Once this is done, our lawmakers need to stop spending like drunken sailors on there pet projects. It remains to be seen weather this will ever really happen. 😏
Higher taxation of the rich pretends that somehow the government can use that money more efficiently than they can. The money that rich folks don't spend in consumption is going to be invested.
We don't need an out of control spendthrift government getting their hands on any more of anyone's money. They need to be cut off at the knees, and made to respect the limitations of the Constitution. You send it and they will spend it. The only time your liberty and money are safe is when Congress is not in session.
19 Dec 08
local governments are just as bad as the national government if not worse, when it comes to spending. But the excessivly rich don't pay enough on taxes, and i also believe the US tax bracket should model whats used in the UK, where if you make 30k you pay x% and if you pay 35k a year you pay 30k at x% and the other 5k at y% etc
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignThe top 10% of earners pay about 90% of taxes.
That is mythology. The top 10% of earners pay about 90% of taxes. Squeezing more out of the supposed rich, only limits the amount of wealth that can be applied to production as capital. Hell during the Obama campaign the definition of rich started out at $250,000 a year, and was at the end down to about $100k. When the income tax was first passed the ...[text shortened]... spend it. The only time your liberty and money are safe is when Congress is not in session.
Source?
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydyou want an apology? i'm sorry you're so insecure that you feel the need to lash out people who disagree with you.
When you call someone stupid, that is name-calling. Dodge it all you want, but everyone with integrity knows it. Well, everyone outside of Norway knows it. And calling someone a hypocrite won't work either because everyone can clearly see who started this feces slingfest: the Northern EuroTrash.
Now we're done. If you have anything to say other than an apology,
...{lalalalalalalalaIdon'thearyoulalalalalalal}......😛
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignQuite correct 😏
What goes unsaid here is that there isn't a quick fix. Isolationism would indeed be painful, but it isn't teh stupidiest thing that could be done.
I'm pretty certain Congress will find something more stupid, like some massive "stimulus" bill, which will compound the problem. Or like baling out the financial sector which precipitated this entire colla ...[text shortened]... s will pass, unless we try to pass it off as if it hasn't been caused by our own actions.
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by Merk
Can your afford your defence budget there in the U.S.?
Sure, if we cut into social programs.
Isn't the U.S.'s massive defence budget a kind of 'social programme' for defence contractors and corporations. What is it now? $600,000,000,000, plus seemingly item by item additional funding for the Pentagon when it actually carries out military operations. Could the defence budget not be reduced?
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraif you doubt this number why not get off your ass and do your own search?
[b]The top 10% of earners pay about 90% of taxes.
Source?[/b]
Why do people on here always demand sources when they could just as easily find the info themselves?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you think someone is lying, then disprove them!
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSorry, I am in error, at least it appears so.
[b]The top 10% of earners pay about 90% of taxes.
Source?[/b]
The number with regard to income taxes is 86% paid by the top 25% of income earners. Source is IRS data from last year reported, and can be linked to from rushlimbaugh.com
I'm not sure where I heard my original numbers, but when other taxes such as those on investments, personal property, excises, etc. some other source may have released the numbers I original spouted.
I'm willing to concede an error, but the actual IRS numbers are enough. The rich pay more than their "fair share", and that share has increased during the Bush administration up from 84% in 2000.
And the point is not changed by the actual numbers. The top 50% pay 97% of income taxes, and the top 1% pay 39% up from 2000 as well. Soaking the wealthy is not the way for the American economy to get well.
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by Silent PawnAbsolutely, although under the US Constitution, local and State governments have more responsibilities, and less restrictions on taxation.
local governments are just as bad as the national government if not worse, when it comes to spending. But the excessivly rich don't pay enough on taxes, and i also believe the US tax bracket should model whats used in the UK, where if you make 30k you pay x% and if you pay 35k a year you pay 30k at x% and the other 5k at y% etc
Still, in most industrialized countries including the US, middle class people end up paying nearly 50% effective tax rates, everything included, and of course what isn't counted is that corporate taxes are ultimately paid by the consumer imbedded in the retail prices of goods and services.
The US, IRS tax code is exactly as you describe the UK version. There are marginal rates. As one goes from one bracket to the next all income above the next marginal rate is charged at a progressively higher rate.
This injustice is even worse, because at lower brackets deductions and exemptions can and do absolve more than 40% from any income tax liability. Below specified levels, people earning income get to "pay" negative taxes called Earned Income Tax Credits, which are no more than welfare, subsidies of income from the government.
The problem with this system, is that it makes fewer and fewer people stakeholders in the government as payors, but those persons who don't pay are also disproportionately represented as beneficiaries or recipients of government largess. In the US we are rapidly approaching the tipping point (may already be there) where the beneficiaries are a majority who can vote to take whatever they want from the producers.
How many people will vote against getting something for nothing? Especially if it couched in the class warfare blaming the greedy rich for all the problems.
In worst case scenarios, all of the wealth is confiscated, investment and economic growth cease, resulting in poverty and shortages of all kinds effecting the beneficiary class as always the worst. The Bolshevik revolution is the old version of this, and today the examples of Cuba, Zimbabwe, and soon to follow Nicaragua can be observed.
The socialist Democracies of Europe, including the UK, survive only by maintaining an appearance of capitalism, and by limiting the greed of government and redistributionist policy.
The temptations is always there to take so much that you kill the goose that laid the golden egg. American corporations like GM exemplify this. GM hasn't made a profit for decades in domestic car sales, but the executives and workers alike are fat and happy. The chickens have come home to roost.
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFNo, and there is probably huge waste in that as well, but unlike the alphabet soup of social agencies, the military is authorized by the US Constitution, in fact mandated.
Can your afford your defence budget there in the U.S.?
The US would not have existed except for the need for national defense. The 13 colonies that united to defeat Britain in the revolutionary war, had little in common except for the need to defend themselves against the aggressions of the Europeans, principally Britain and France.
Take some time, and read the Declaration of Independence, the entire original Constitution, the Federalist papers, and the early amendments. It is also instructive to read some of the Congressional record prior to the Civil War, to understand the intended simple and limited role of the Federal government. And it was also US policy to be "isolationist" until WWII, with the Monroe doctrine allowing for limited intervention in this hemisphere.
It was repeatedly argued, early on by James Madison, the acknowledged primary author of the Constitution, that the Federal government was not intended to do good deeds for constituency groups no matter how needy and deserving. That the Congress had no authority to transfer wealth by paying for benefits for constituency groups which were paid for by excess taxation of others.
The defense budget could very likely be reduced without sacrificing the security of the United States. And don't give me Iraq. How about getting out of Germany, Japan, Haiti, the Balkans, and probably a hundred other locations not directly related to national security. The posting of American troops worldwide gives the impression of a British like empire, without any of the economic benefits of such an empire. In fact the US "empire" costs the American taxpayer.