"50% is simply too high a percentage of the population to be exempted from DIRECTLY having to pay income taxes."
what's too high, or too low a percentage?
You very probably underestimate the percentage of Real America (not the bull Palin one) lives from week to week. And you're typically a vengeful asshole, anyway.
We could really them hard by closing all the taxpayer-funded medical services. That'll show them to dare pissing off CG for not paying income taxes.
I was in Sears the other day. The middle-aged guy, very friendly and knew his mattresses, worked 5 days/week as Allstate insurance salesman, and 2 days week flogging Sears mattresses. There are 10s of millions holding down 2 or 3 ty jobs. aka, The American Dream Reamed.
Something like 40M now qualify for food stamps, a record.
Long term unemployed lose about $20B assistance at the end of 2011.
Some 3rd world countries have less wealth inequality than UCA.
What amazes me about the " 50% don't pay" crowd is that they are silent when corporations ( now viewed as persons courtesy of the Supreme Court) use every loophole available to skirt paying taxes... yet when middle class income earners do the same it's evil/wrong..
"they need skin in the game"...
Coming from you, that sound like a term of endearment.
We should close corporate tax loopholes. I support Obama's stance of including the closure of corporate tax loopholes in the debt ceiling talks.
There.
that would be great..but the tea potties wan't offseting tax cuts for these to be closed... if you do that, you are right back where you started..
This would be the sames as the dems agreeing to 2 trillion dollars in spending program cuts but wanted to increase spending on other programs by 2 trillion dollars
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 07-15-2011 at 09:19 AM.
I support cutting $4T in cuts if there is $4T in increased revenue
that's exactly it..
that's an $8T swing.
Let me ask a question to anyone willing to answer.
Are you sure that raising taxes on the rich will give the government more revenue beyond the first quarter tax cycle?
You don't need to raise taxes. Just close loopholes. Which in a way the rich will it's a tax hike.
I agree. Let me specify. Why people are certain that raising tax rates on the rich will increase revenue, past the first quarter taxed, or tax year, depending on how people file. Simple enough question, isn't it?
Depends on what the 'rich' are. Over what amount of income?
Not every 'rich' can afford to use loopholes.
Give me a scenario then.
Of course it will. Does WC think they're all going to pick up and leave? Thats laughable.
Of course not. The 2 yr extension on the Bush tax cuts for >$250k households "only" cost $81.5 billion. The current defecits we're running would burn that up in one month.
For example, to do what mega corps do to avoid taxes, you need a subsidiary company in the Netherlands, and another subsidiary in a tax heaven like Bermuda ("Dutch Sandwich"). For Euro / Middle East sales, they also need another subsidiary in Ireland ("Double Irish"). Obviously, these schemes are reserved for companies that sell worldwide and make a lot of millions to support that structure.
For the rich, but not so rich, revenue from them was higher when the Clinton tax rates were in place. That's no disputable. There's no reason revenue wouldn't increase if going back to those rates.
I think he's arguing that removing those tax cuts wouldn't increase the revenue. I don't think he's correct in most cases.
If you want to talk about what companies like GE does, you would need to talk about both "Double Irish", "Dutch Sandwich", and add up that they manipulate the earnings from their investment/capital subdivision to offset the earnings from their other divisions. That's how they end up with a tax bill that actually gives them money from the government.
I see no one can give an answer as to why they are certain. Just repeating hyperbole.
Consider this. If we are certain that raising tax rates increase revenue, then why not tax to top marginal rate at 100%?
You guys seem to think they don't need to keep their money past a certain point, so why not 100%?
Well?
If increasing taxes increases revenue, why not just tax the rich at 100% past say $500,000?
Revenue would still be up though.
dubya's 2003 estate tax cut cost $800B+, (much of which went into private investment funds that led, dominated the sub-prime toxic mortgage in numbers of mortgages written.)
There's $500B/year that could be could out of MIC/DoState Empire Expansion and maintenance. That's $5T in 10 years.
Isn't anyone man enough to answer my simple question?
Manny...
El Know no...
because it's a stupid question
Maybe if you didn't propose stupid questions. Obviously taxing the rich at 100% would be stupid but of course you have to make a ridiculous argument that no one has proposed in order to make your otherwise non salient point.
Increasing the taxes on everyone - especially the rich - is needed but no one has said you should tax them at 100%.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
