Obama: We Have Money For Warfare, But Not For Welfare

Insults a plenty I see. Haha.

The government is not entitled to everyones money simply because it is the government.

Yours and my definition of their fair share are vastly different it seems. You believe fair is complaining that people have too much and wanting to take the excess. I believe fair is paying a tax in proportion to your income. Not only does that happen, but they pay a higher percentage of their income as well. You all act as if 10% of a million bucks is the same tax as 10% of 25,000.

And before you rant on the issue of rich people not paying taxes (again). What percent of revenue in the US is from those "rich" people again? Wow they really must not be paying their taxes huh?

If I make $1,000,000 dollars, and lock $900,000 of it away because I don't need or want it. The government should not be thinking the $900,000 would make a nice addition or help to a social program.
 
First, I'm not advocating communism redistribution of wealth. If people work hard and take risks then they are entitled to have more money and better stuff.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied the government was a benefit to them in building their wealth. If you don't believe me, go try to make yourself into a millionaire in Uganda or Somalia. If you aren't killed in the process (yep, government helps prevent that from happening as well) then you'll have proven me wrong.

I enjoy hearing your report when you get back.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']First, I'm not advocating communism redistribution of wealth. If people work hard and take risks then they are entitled to have more money and better stuff.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied the government was a benefit to them in building their wealth. If you don't believe me, go try to make yourself into a millionaire in Uganda or Somalia. If you aren't killed in the process (yep, government helps prevent that from happening as well) then you'll have proven me wrong.

I enjoy hearing your report when you get back.[/QUOTE]

This is part of the governments responsibility. What part of that responsibility includes what they are trying to accomplish now? This is why people are upset with the governments role not that they are being taxed.
 
[quote name='Knoell']This is part of the governments responsibility. What part of that responsibility includes what they are trying to accomplish now? This is why people are upset with the governments role not that they are being taxed.[/QUOTE]

I'm a little lost on your direction here.

I will say that the government does have responsibilities yes, however, they also need to finance those responsibilities somehow.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I'm no fan of Obama either but this argument that he's a socialist is just as silly and ridiculous as the claims that Bush was Hitler.[/quote]

Bullshit, Hitler was a wonderful public speaker!

My real favorite is that those accusing Obama of socialism don't seem to realize that we live in a bizarre hybrid of social socialism with a sort of free market economy. Novus Ordo Seclorum indeed!


I wonder what their response to Social Security will be if the checks don't go out. Do they (A) Defend it because Obama screwed it up or (B) jump to their old argument that it should have been privatized all along?
Click to expand...

I love privatized SSI, not only is my 401(k) down 50% but my SSI is gone too!
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I'm a little lost on your direction here.

I will say that the government does have responsibilities yes, however, they also need to finance those responsibilities somehow.[/QUOTE]

I will say again, people are not upset with the fact that they have to pay taxes. They are upset with the role the government is taking.

Notice something?

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...tack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

We aren't receiving less revenue as a percentage of GDP (despite the vastly lower taxes that are devasting our income), besides 9/11, and the recent recession.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

But look spending as a percent of GDP is steadily increasing year after year after year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Insults a plenty I see. Haha.

The government is not entitled to everyones money simply because it is the government.

Yours and my definition of their fair share are vastly different it seems. You believe fair is complaining that people have too much and wanting to take the excess. I believe fair is paying a tax in proportion to your income. Not only does that happen, but they pay a higher percentage of their income as well. You all act as if 10% of a million bucks is the same tax as 10% of 25,000.[/QUOTE]
So are you saying that you are ok with a millionaire paying more tax by percentage than someone making $25k? Cause that's what it sounds like to me.

And before you rant on the issue of rich people not paying taxes (again). What percent of revenue in the US is from those "rich" people again? Wow they really must not be paying their taxes huh?
Click to expand...
Yes, the rich pay more in taxes than the poor. But then again, they control a Vast majority of the wealth to begin with.

If I make $1,000,000 dollars, and lock $900,000 of it away because I don't need or want it. The government should not be thinking the $900,000 would make a nice addition or help to a social program.
Click to expand...
Did you edit this part?

[quote name='Knoell']I will say again, people are not upset with the fact that they have to pay taxes. They are upset with the role the government is taking to tax them more.[/QUOTE]
fix.d
 
[quote name='Knoell']Insults a plenty I see. Haha.

The government is not entitled to everyones money simply because it is the government.

Yours and my definition of their fair share are vastly different it seems. You believe fair is complaining that people have too much and wanting to take the excess. I believe fair is paying a tax in proportion to your income. Not only does that happen, but they pay a higher percentage of their income as well. You all act as if 10% of a million bucks is the same tax as 10% of 25,000.

And before you rant on the issue of rich people not paying taxes (again). What percent of revenue in the US is from those "rich" people again? Wow they really must not be paying their taxes huh?

If I make $1,000,000 dollars, and lock $900,000 of it away because I don't need or want it. The government should not be thinking the $900,000 would make a nice addition or help to a social program.[/QUOTE]

Uh oh, you fell into the logical abyss of the flat tax. Don't worry, I crawled out of it after some more analysis and you can too.
Let's just use your 10% figure, though x% can be substituted and it all works in the end. It looks great on paper as you basically see that your "dues" for citizenship are 10% and that's not bad. But then you tack on property taxes, sales taxes, alcohol and booze taxes etc... and then it starts to become very unbalanced. Then you have to remember that income over $106,800.01 is taxed at a rate that is 4.2% less or 10.4% less if you're self employed (OASDI) so now you've effectively given that 10%er at $1m a tax free income on $894,000.99 of income compared to the other guy.
As much as it sounds like a dohdough platitude, it truly does cost more to be poor.
 
[quote name='dohdough']So are you saying that you are ok with a millionaire paying more tax by percentage than someone making $25k? Cause that's what it sounds like to me.


Yes, the rich pay more in taxes than the poor. But then again, they control a Vast majority of the wealth to begin with.


Did you edit this part?


fix.d[/QUOTE]

I am fine with current tax rates.

Rich people control the vast majority of the wealth and pay the vast majority of the US budget. Sounds like their fair share to me.

I don't know if I edited or not, sometimes I edit right after I post but I don't remember.

Your edit is partially true. I don't want to pay more taxes because the government demands it to fund programs and participate in actions I do not agree with. Do you? I bet you could get by without an extra $50 bucks a year? Why not? You can afford it right? Then it shouldn't be a problem right?

And Nasum, I am not advocating a flat tax rate. I am simply pointing out that they should realize they are thinking of a different kind of "fair share" than their opposition. The fair share is not what the rich spend or keep in excess.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I am fine with current tax rates.[/quote]
I'm going to one up you on this one: I want to go back to Reagan tax rates!

Rich people control the vast majority of the wealth and pay the vast majority of the US budget. Sounds like their fair share to me.
Click to expand...
Not in proportion to the wealth they actually control and the method they acquire more of it. Income tax isn't the only form of taxation and wages aren't the only way to gain an income.

Your edit is partially true. I don't want to pay more taxes because the government demands it to fund programs and participate in actions I do not agree with. Do you? I bet you could get by without an extra $50 bucks a year? Why not? You can afford it right? Then it shouldn't be a problem right?
Click to expand...
We all pay for shit we don't want. I didn't vote for Bush or for us to go to Iraq or for mercenaries. And yes, I can afford an extra $50, but that doesn't mean the he person that makes half what I make is able to afford it and that doesn't mean that those that make twice as much as me can't afford $100.

And Nasum, I am not advocating a flat tax rate. I am simply pointing out that they should realize they are thinking of a different kind of "fair share" than their opposition. The fair share is not what the rich spend or keep in excess.
Click to expand...
You do know that the rich don't derive most of their income through wages right? That's why Warren Buffet pays less tax as a percentage than his secretary. This is also why your idea of a "fair share" also isn't fair.
 
Bah you have successfully kept me awake long enough, I have 3 hours to sleep before work. I will respond sometime over the weekend.
 
$0 - $50,000 = 0%
$50,001 - $250,000 = 5%
$250,001 - $1,000,000 = 10%
$1,000,001+ = 15%

Capital gains = 15%

Corporate rate = 15%

No deductions or subsidies. GE and other conglomerates don't deserve to have money given to them while legitimate businesses pay a 30%+ rate. Millionaires don't get write-offs on their portfolios that bring their tax rate into the negative range.

Who's with me
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even without seeing the math worked out longwise, thats not nearly enough for me. But I'm a statist :)

You gotta give me an import trade tariff(tax) to even have a chance at my support though.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']$0 - $50,000 = 0%
$50,001 - $250,000 = 5%
$250,001 - $1,000,000 = 10%
$1,000,001+ = 15%

Capital gains = 15%

Corporate rate = 15%

No deductions or subsidies. GE and other conglomerates don't deserve to have money given to them while legitimate businesses pay a 30%+ rate. Millionaires don't get write-offs on their portfolios that bring their tax rate into the negative range.

Who's with me[/QUOTE]
The lowest bracket aside, that's even LESS than what people pay now WITH the loop holes. Add 20% and we're roughly at current top marginal rates except for capital gains.

Now if you add 30%, I might be there.:D
 
Yeah, those taxes are way too low. We really need the tax brackets back around the pre-Reagan levels IMO. Or if not that, just having a lot more tax brackets rather than capping them at $373K or whatever this years top bracket is (or just having a couple bit higher income brackets like Abscess puts forth.

For instance, here's an example of what I have in mind that I posted in the Obamacare thread here a while back. More to exemplify having a lot of brackets as I didn't put much thought into the specific cut points or percentages.

$1-10,000- 0%
$10,001-20K-10%
$15,001-25k-15%
$25,001-35k-20%
$35,001-50k-25%
$50,001-75K-30%
$75,001-100K-35%
$100,001-199,999-37%
$200k-399,999-39%
300k-499,999-41%
500k-749,99-43%
750k-999,999-45%
$1 million-1,999,999-47%
$2 million to $4,999,999-50%
$5 million to $9,999,999-55%
$10 million and up-60%


Looking back on those, I think they probably should get to higher percentages a lot quicker than what I put their (and go higher than 60% for the absurd incomes).

The high brackets should provide some disincentive for people getting salaries over a certain amount. Every employ that's paid millions is taking big chunks of profit that could have been reinvested to expand the company, create new jobs, give raises to workers etc.

The gap between executive and worker pay that's widen at record pace over recent decades is one of the biggest problems with our economy and society in general. Something I read the other day showed that median worker salary was up 23% while executive pay had quadrupled over the same time period. I forget what exactly what the timeframe was, maybe since 1980 or thereabouts IIRC.
 
[quote name='dohdough']60%? LOLZ...fucking commie! :D[/QUOTE]

:D

Here's a a great chart Msut posted in the Obamacare thread I saw when digging up that old bracket example.

[quote name='Msut77']
Historical+top+tax+rates.jpg

[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Clak']Man the early 20th century must have been hell for the wealthy.

Ha...ha.....ahahahah :rofl:[/QUOTE]

depends what the top tax bracket was, how many were in that bracket, and what it takes to live comfortably. graphs are pointless without context.

edit: heres your context. need help finding percentage of population in top tax bracket in 2010/2011 vs 1936

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

$5,000,000.00 in 1936 had the same buying power as $79,412,681.16 in 2011.

odd how the top tax brackets with FDR were in the millions until 1942. they were also in the millions from 1916-1921 :shock:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah that was a sarcastic post. The truth is that despite a higher tax rate, the wealthy in this country were fine.
 
I am still wondering how revenues as a percent of GDP still grew over the years. I mean if people really get the gargantuan tax cut that you guys keep toting around, then revenues must of been way down shortly after. Wait...they weren't? Imagine that.
 
The answers knoell is asking for have been explained easily a half dozen times.

If he doesn't get it by now it is either because A) His brain is mush B) He is being dishonest.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The answers knoell is asking for have been explained easily a half dozen times.

If he doesn't get it by now it is either because A) His brain is mush B) He is being dishonest.[/QUOTE]

Although I am really enjoying the pathetic personal attacks on me across all variety of topics, Quotes Please. :)
 
Speaking of things that have been explained thirteen dozen times...

It isn't a personal attack to accurately describe what someone says or how they act.
 
I think we need a corporate tax rate that reflects how many jobs a company creates and at what salary. So we start the tax rate at something like 50-60% but as corporations create jobs it could drop as low as 20%. If a corporation exports its jobs out of the US and or does not create any jobs they are taxed at a more traditional level. Meanwhile if they actually create a ton of decent paying jobs they are taxed at a rate below what we are at even today.

Something like this would be very difficult to put in place obviously, but it would be worth it.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I think we need a corporate tax rate that reflects how many jobs a company creates and at what salary. So we start the tax rate at something like 50-60% but as corporations create jobs it could drop as low as 20%. If a corporation exports its jobs out of the US and or does not create any jobs they are taxed at a more traditional level. Meanwhile if they actually create a ton of decent paying jobs they are taxed at a rate below what we are at even today.

Something like this would be very difficult to put in place obviously, but it would be worth it.[/QUOTE]

The irony is that under the Bush administration, the federal government was actually rewarding companies for off-shoring workers. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

I think the global economy is here to stay and all the protectionism in the world is not going to change that. I think America needs to compete like the Japanese, the govt needs to stop bankrolling Wall Street which consumes wealth for essentially nothing of intrinsic value, and boost American scientific research - green energy, cars, agriculture, all the stuff that matters. Wall Street and the rich can take care of themselves, it's the middle class that needs help.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Knoell, were taxes raised or lowered under Reagan?[/QUOTE]

How about you quit attempting the "gotcha" moments, and speak what you want to say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top