Where is the US economy headed?

okie wrote:

xingu, you are actually drifting into another whole can of worms here, another subject, perhaps for another day, but didn't the founders originally require a person to own property in order to vote? Nobody would advocate that today, but it does raise an issue. The term, "taxation without representation," was the phrase behind the Boston Tea Party. So if you don't pay tax, do you deserve as much representation. Just a question. Of course everyone pays some kind of tax, especially sales tax. And everyone that works, except government, pays into the Social Security tax system, which is not progressive at all, it is in fact regressive.

My whole point here is that the rich are constantly demonized as selfish and greedy, when in fact they do pay more than their way, and now the percentage of people paying absolutely no income tax is approaching 50%. Is that actually a good thing in terms of being fully vested in wanting the government to spend its money wisely?

P. S. a little kid always wants the parent to buy an ice cream cone, because that kid does not make the money, the parent does. Thats what I am talking about in terms of being fully vested in wanting to spend the money wisely.

Well, the money supply in America is gradually gravitating towards the rich. That's why the number who pay no taxes has risen to the level you've seen; they have absolutely no money at all to pay from, you can't get blood from a stone.

Not all the rich are greedy bastards, but a lot of them are. It's a quality that gives one an added chance of becoming rich. And you must admit, there certainly isn't much evidence that the Rich care about poor folk, other then to try and shut them out of their rich neighborhoods.

Every time I see a gated, private neighborhood full of gigantic houses and poorly adjusted kids... there is a divide in America.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

My whole point here is that the rich are constantly demonized as selfish and greedy, when in fact they do pay more than their way, and now the percentage of people paying absolutely no income tax is approaching 50%. Is that actually a good thing in terms of being fully vested in wanting the government to spend its money wisely?

And the rich should pay more because they have more and can better afford it.

If those paying no taxes is approaching 50%, as you say, could it be because of the increasing disparity between the rich and poor? Does this mean there are more poor people than in the past? Or are there more rich people finding ways of dodging taxes?

Quote:

So if you don't pay tax, do you deserve as much representation.

Damn right you do. First, because they're Americans.

Second, if they don't pay taxes it's most likely they're poor. Would you say poor people don't deserve to be represented the our government? Or do you think rich people should have more say than the poor because they pay more taxes? If so than why not say the government is for sale to the highest bidder. The more money you give to the government and politicians the more say you have in the government.

Who do you think will benefit from that; the rich or America as a whole?

0 Replies

okie forgets the history of taxation in the US. Some decades ago, we had a "real" progressive tax system, where the highest tax rates was 50 percent until Reagan dropped it to 28 percent (late eighties).

People pay the tax rates to be a citizen of a country, because that's where they earn their living. It makes sense that during war times, the tax rates should be higher for everybody - even the poor.

What is happening today is criminal; we are creating huge deficits to be paid by our children and grandchildren for decisions made by a president who doestn't understand economics. The interest payments on these borrowed funds are taking away from the necessary social overhead capital spending to keep our country safe and economically viable.

Congress is partly to blame for not controlling spending.

0 Replies

Hell, the highest tax rates used to be in the 90% region. And, we still had super-rich people, we still had investment, we still had economic expansion (more so then today!), we still had revenue and progress and wealth.

Every time the 'it'll discourage investment!' line is trotted out, it is bullshit. A complete lie which is unsupported by historical fact.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Back up a bit here. First of all, just because one is rich does not indicate greed. I would submit to you that a guy that refuses to work, but expects everyone else to pay for his life is more greedy than the guy that goes out and works his entire life to earn what he has. The definition of greed is a subject in and of itself, and people are wrongly demonized here. Communist dictators come to power by preaching class envy. I have no problem with greedy people that work for what they get. When they do, it isn't greed, and it should actually be honored by the people that reap the benefits of other peoples good fortune and hard work. Instead of envying Bill Gates, people should instead thank him for the thousands of jobs his company has provided.

And Xingu, they rich do pay more. So thank them for a change.

In regard to the disparity of the rich and poor, I am not convinced that the poverty level percentage is increasing. The official numbers might be slightly, but I have offered solid evidence as to how those numbers do not represent the true picture. Also, I have also posted the assertion that those that go hungry are down by about a third now as compared to the mid 90's, from some figures I saw. We also must look at the change in jobs and technology here in this country. Our standard of living has allowed emerging nations that pay lower wages to do more of the manufacturing of goods, which is to be expected in the world economy, which is somewhat of a free market. Our hope to maintain our standard of living is to stay at the forefront of technology. In order to reap the benefits of those industries, young people need to be taught accordingly and I believe our media and educational system are failing us in this regard. We cannot expect to raise minimum wages enough to help everyone work at McDonalds and Wendys in order to live the good life and let the very rich pay all of your taxes. That is not realistic and we need to change our whole cultural mindset. Preaching class envy and expecting the rich to foot the entire bill is not going to get the job done.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie forgets the history of taxation in the US. Some decades ago, we had a "real" progressive tax system, where the highest tax rates was 50 percent until Reagan dropped it to 28 percent (late eighties).

People pay the tax rates to be a citizen of a country, because that's where they earn their living. It makes sense that during war times, the tax rates should be higher for everybody - even the poor.

What is happening today is criminal; we are creating huge deficits to be paid by our children and grandchildren for decisions made by a president who doestn't understand economics. The interest payments on these borrowed funds are taking away from the necessary social overhead capital spending to keep our country safe and economically viable.

What youre saying is 100% accurate and I agree with it.. Unfortunately most people look at this opinion as 'outdated' or 'old-fashioned'.. reality will eventually hit eveyrbody square in the jaw one way or another

Congress is partly to blame for not controlling spending.

0 Replies

Quote:

And Xingu, they rich do pay more. So thank them for a change.

Why should I thank them? They certainly aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart, or any sort of charity, but because they are forced to.

You really have a twisted view of things, yaknow, in that you seem to think that being rich is some sort of virtue. The rich also 'reap the benefits' of the hard work of other peoples.

Fact is, the 'rich' make up about 20% of our society at the most; and it is they who rely on the rest of us, not the other way around. Without the poor folks to pick their crops, they wouldn't have anything to eat. Without janitors to clean their businesses, they would wade through filth. Without people beneath them, they would be making copies and sending faxes all day, not to mention building their own buildings and whatnot. The rich are far more reliant on the poor, then the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie, Did you take math in school?

Even if the percentage stays the same, the population increase affects the number of those in poverty. If you are unable to translate the simple fact that more than seven million more Americans are now without health insurance since Bush took over the white house, you are just too ignorant to understand math or reality. You are really a dork!

0 Replies

Quote:

And Xingu, they rich do pay more. So thank them for a change.

No okie, I don't thank them for it; I expect it from them.

0 Replies

Tell you what okie; you go grovel on your knees to the rich and thank them.

If they're nice they might give you a treat.

0 Replies

Before JFK, marginal tax rates were even higher. Here again, we get into another can of worms, the existence or non-existence of a curve similar to a Laffer curve. We have debated about that extensively.

To be accurate, tax rates and tax revenue are two different things. Further, annual deficits and the national debt are two different things. Also, whether you factor in Social Security collections also determines whether we classify any one year as deficit spending or not.

If people want to go back to the very high marginal tax rates, then the politicians will have to go through the political process, but even Democrats are not dumb enough to advocate the highest marginal tax rates that we've had in history.

Personally, I think our primary problem is spending, not tax revenues.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Quote:
And Xingu, they rich do pay more. So thank them for a change.

No okie, I don't thank them for it; I expect it from them.

Of course you do, you're a liberal.

0 Replies

Quote:

If people want to go back to the very high marginal tax rates, then the politicians will have to go through the political process, but even Democrats are not dumb enough to advocate the highest marginal tax rates that we've had in history.

Why not? Our economy grew at the same rate then as it does now.

Let's split the difference - raise the marginal rates to 60% at the top level, halfway between historical highs and the current rates. I would be willing to bet that our economic growth wouldn't suffer too much. And our tax revenues would rise considerably, something which is necessary for us to pay off the debt.

We will never pay off the debt without raising taxes. It is a statistical impossibility.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

xingu wrote:
Quote:
And Xingu, they rich do pay more. So thank them for a change.

No okie, I don't thank them for it; I expect it from them.

Of course you do, you're a liberal.

Conservatives don't expect people to pay taxes?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yes, spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Bush tried to make the tax cuts permanent. He doesn't understand economics 101 either! The debt must be paid sooner or later, but Bush prefers to defer the debt to future generations of Americans - just to make the rich of today much richer. No brains. No household in America can exist in similar fashion.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
xingu wrote:
Quote:
And Xingu, they rich do pay more. So thank them for a change.

No okie, I don't thank them for it; I expect it from them.

Of course you do, you're a liberal.

Conservatives don't expect people to pay taxes?

Cycloptichorn

Maybe they just don't expect the rich to pay taxes.......

0 Replies

Since okie wants to thank rich people for paying more taxes may I suggest he write a thank you note to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. You should doubly thank them because they want to raise taxes for the rich. That means they want to contribute even more of their money to our government.

I think, okie, you should be more thankful for these unselfish rich people than the ones who keep whining about how they want more tax cuts for themselves.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

If people want to go back to the very high marginal tax rates, then the politicians will have to go through the political process, but even Democrats are not dumb enough to advocate the highest marginal tax rates that we've had in history.

Why not? Our economy grew at the same rate then as it does now.

Let's split the difference - raise the marginal rates to 60% at the top level, halfway between historical highs and the current rates. I would be willing to bet that our economic growth wouldn't suffer too much. And our tax revenues would rise considerably, something which is necessary for us to pay off the debt.

We will never pay off the debt without raising taxes. It is a statistical impossibility.

Cycloptichorn

"us"?

You mean "them", right? The ones you want to double their taxes on?

One way to pay off the deficit without raising taxes is to stop spending so much. Neither party is particularly good at that though.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

If people want to go back to the very high marginal tax rates, then the politicians will have to go through the political process, but even Democrats are not dumb enough to advocate the highest marginal tax rates that we've had in history.

Why not? Our economy grew at the same rate then as it does now.

Let's split the difference - raise the marginal rates to 60% at the top level, halfway between historical highs and the current rates. I would be willing to bet that our economic growth wouldn't suffer too much. And our tax revenues would rise considerably, something which is necessary for us to pay off the debt.

We will never pay off the debt without raising taxes. It is a statistical impossibility.

Cycloptichorn

"us"? You mean "them", right? The ones you want to double their taxes on?

One way to pay off the deficit without raising taxes is to stop spending so much. Neither party is particularly good at that though.

Well now that you have admitted it can't be done by either party than we shall have to raise taxes.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

If people want to go back to the very high marginal tax rates, then the politicians will have to go through the political process, but even Democrats are not dumb enough to advocate the highest marginal tax rates that we've had in history.

Why not? Our economy grew at the same rate then as it does now.

Let's split the difference - raise the marginal rates to 60% at the top level, halfway between historical highs and the current rates. I would be willing to bet that our economic growth wouldn't suffer too much. And our tax revenues would rise considerably, something which is necessary for us to pay off the debt.

We will never pay off the debt without raising taxes. It is a statistical impossibility.

Cycloptichorn

"us"? You mean "them", right? The ones you want to double their taxes on?

One way to pay off the deficit without raising taxes is to stop spending so much. Neither party is particularly good at that though.

There's no way we could cut spending and pay off the debt, let alone the deficit. It's not mathematically possible without completely axing everything we pay for, for years. Not going to happen.

The national debt belongs to everyone; it isn't portioned out by how much taxes you pay in. The rich don't own more of the national debt then anyone else. So, it will be 'us' who pays it off.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know