Where is the US economy headed?

@Cycloptichorn,

I gave you my solution, cyclops, just tax everything over a million at 100%. Are you on board?

@okie,

okie wrote:

I gave you my solution, cyclops, just tax everything over a million at 100%. Are you on board?

I don't know if a million is a low enough bar for that. Though I do favor a progressive tax that tops out at 100%, I believe that there is ample room for us to ramp that up to, say, over a hundred million dollars a year.

But, I must say, I have a hard time seeing your party supporting this. I am gratified that you have come around to the idea that we need to cut spending AND raise taxes, and it makes me appreciate the time we've spent discussing this.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

How about everything over 100 grand? As long as it doesn't touch me, I'm for it, how about you? Isn't that how we judge things nowadays? By the way, everything under 100 grand should be 0% tax, right?

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

How about everything over 100 grand? As long as it doesn't touch me, I'm for it, how about you? Isn't that how we judge things nowadays? By the way, everything under 100 grand should be 0% tax, right?

I believe now that you are simply being ridiculous for some reason. I don't know why, because it doesn't further the conversation any.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

PS. I think I already proposed 100% over 250,000, but I am lowering it to 100 grand. Why not? After all, why does anyone need more than 100 grand? Lets do it for the country!!!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

okie goes from ridiculous to extreme ridiculous; that's how his brain works. It's never logical or based on anything except his imagination.

0 Replies

I just don't understand the point he's trying to make.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Isn't that what I said? I'd like to hear from those who agrees with okie. Anyone!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I just don't understand the point he's trying to make.
Cycloptichorn

The point is that if our tax system is based upon need and ability to pay, then why not do the 100 grand? I think its a good basic question, if we are serious about solving our budget crisis. If it is not about need and ability to pay, and about fairnesss, then why even have tax brackets at all? Why not a flat tax?

If you guys have not caught on, I am trying to get you to consider the basic principles that you believe in, in regard to government policy, especially tax policy. Don't you think it should be grounded upon constitutional principles? But if things known as "principles" don't matter, then we can forget them I guess?

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I just don't understand the point he's trying to make.
Cycloptichorn

The point is that if our tax system is based upon need and ability to pay, then why not do the 100 grand? I think its a good basic question, if we are serious about solving our budget crisis. If it is not about need and ability to pay, and about fairnesss, then why even have tax brackets at all? Why not a flat tax?

If you guys have not caught on, I am trying to get you to consider the basic principles that you believe in, in regard to government policy, especially tax policy. Don't you think it should be grounded upon constitutional principles?

Our current tax policy IS grounded on Constitutional principles. The SC has confirmed this on several different occasions when folks much like yourself challenged the Constitutionality of our tax system. Each challenge failed. So I don't think your argument has much merit.

I think that your attempt to Appeal to Extremes doesn't work, either. There is a marked difference between incomes in the dozens or hundreds of millions per year, and 100k per year. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Do you agree that 100 grand per year should be more than enough to live on?

1 Reply

@okie,

The basic principle that I believe in are these:
1. Do not spend more than income
2. Save for a rainy day
3. Tax rates are based on a) rational/reasonable rates, b) ability to pay, and c) graduated tax rates
4. If the federal deficit continues to increase, tax more to those who have the ability to pay (it's not fair or ethical to transfer this debt to our children and grandchildren; it shows irresponsibility)

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Do you agree that 100 grand per year should be more than enough to live on?

No, not at all. I mean, if you live in the middle of ******* nowhere like you do, maybe. But you would have a hard time, say, buying a house in the Bay Area or NYC off that much money.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

okie is trying to insult you without calling you a name. That is his point.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I was going to post something similar about what $100,000 means in different locations.

Consider that a single person who earns less than $23,000/annum is not going to make it financially where I live, in western Massachusetts. Now, okie thinks a family of four can make it on $25,000/annum. He doesn't specify where he thinks this is possible -- although I think his parameter means nothing but institutionalizing poverty in specific areas. I suggest that for okie, the matter is not where but when. He's living in a time warp. In the late 60s, a family making $25,000 would have been considered strongly middle, even upper middle, class.

1 Reply

Tax the wealthier more so that those who have less will have even less, because the wealthier will no longer be able to invest or spend as much and thereby create as much opportunity and/or as many opportunities for the less wealthy to grow wealthier.

That will in turn reduce human consumption and increase consumption by other species.

0 Replies

Good evening. Ben Bernanke addressed a more than somewhat skeptical audience today in Europe defending the latest round of Quantitative Easing (dubbed QE2) by the Fed. I cannot begin to summarize his arguments. If you follow economics closely, you might want to view the whole speech.
A couple of comments caught my ear regarding inflation, which we have talked about here and on other threads.
After talking about unemployment in the U.S., he warned against "...a further decline in inflation." He seemed to suggest that an inflation rate of around 2% is appropriate.
I would prefer to see something closer to 3%.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

rjb, I also agree with the 3% inflation rate. QE2; the circulation of more US dollars in a world where the US dollar dominates is a very bad idea. We're not fighting deflation; we're fighting the lack of jobs. They're going about it the wrong way.

Greenspan's cheap money policy was partly responsible for the bubble that burst in 2008. They never learn.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I make a third for the 3% inflation rate.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Do you agree that 100 grand per year should be more than enough to live on?
No, not at all. I mean, if you live in the middle of ******* nowhere like you do, maybe. But you would have a hard time, say, buying a house in the Bay Area or NYC off that much money.
Cycloptichorn

You can't live on more than 8 grand a month where you live? And have you ever considered the fact that the bay area is way way overpriced? Why don't you live somewhere else that is priced reasonably? Why are you allowing yourself to be ripped off royally?

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know