And ~47% pay nothing. It's the same side of the same coin.
Not sure that is accurate. I think it was ~47% are on some type of government entitlement, what I believe Romney was referring too.
I think that is different.
Jump to content
Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:28 AM
Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:40 PM
But this is an all time high, this is not the norm. We are trying to get back to a normal place, and the fiscal cliff could increase this instead of decrease.
Hence why I am for workable solutions to our current situation.
PS. I am all for fiscal responsibility, but that is an oxymoran in our current system.
Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:22 PM
Based on the graph, it looks like a pretty steady increase in the amount of folks not paying into federal income tax. I'm not sure what a "norm" would be based on that graph. It's a nice steady increase with a few flux periods.
As for this normal place, how do we get there? Is increasing the tax burden on the rch going to increase the number of people paing in? Is govt. stimulus ( such as for instance Krugman's idea to prepare for a fake alien invasion) going to do it? If so, how much spending and how long will that artificial boom have to last? We did 800 billion in stimulus a few years ago and it didn't do anything. The federal reserve has been stimulating through asset purchases (money "printing") for the last few years and even ramped up that effort with QE3. But it seems like a fleeting success.
How to we get a workable solution to the problem if fiscal responisbility is an oxymoron? That sounds like a self defeated purpose right from the gate. I'm just trying to understand where you come from on this.
Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:33 PM
Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:37 PM
To think that the wealth of this country lies in the pockets of republicans is partisan blindness beyond belief and only shows your agenda of, "if it hurts the republicans more, I'm for it.". Play your red vs blue politics but know that you add to the problem rather that help solve it.
Yes, I engaged, now I'm out.
Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:40 PM
Would say less than 30% since from 1960 to 1990, and since it has grown.
I blame Reagan tax cuts, because the rich are not paying the same as they used too. I say roll back the Reagan tax cuts and get out of reaganomics forever. I feel the tax burden with this tax cut led to the rich not paying their fair share, and now it sounds political to ask them to pay more. I am ok with just a small increase, the burden dropped 20% since 1980.
How does the amount of taxes the rich pay in, contribute to less people overall paying federal income tax?
Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:48 PM
If they paid in a little bit more, their would be more money for the government (to waste), which leads more jobs, and more people paying taxes, in theory.
The wealthy will still be wealthy, a little more is not going to make them go hungry.
Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:55 PM
So, the government creates jobs by taxing the wealthy, and these jobs pay federal income tax, which raises the pool of federal income tax payers?
It sounds like grabbing a bucket of water from one end of the pool and dumping it (minus what was splahsed on the pool deck) back into the other side. It's not a wealth generating scheme, in my view, or theory. It's actually regressive, because the government taxes the same money twice, which decreases the overall pool for consumers. Even the new ones that the government created by wealth redistribution.
Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:18 PM
Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:22 PM
That's not Obama's plan. His plan is to reduce deficits by 1.4 trillion over ten years. The republican counteroffer, would reduce it by 2.2 trillion.
Neither one fully reduces the deficit for any year through the ten year cycle. And with the typical go on faith that "we'll look at spending cuts later", it's probably a fools errand to tax anyone a single fuirther cent.
Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:35 PM
Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:55 PM
Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:06 PM
Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:24 PM
Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:30 PM
so you're saying that attempting negotiations is a waste of time, and they shouldn't even bother trying?
that's a stellar attitude
what do we pay these people to do, then?
The terms were negotiated, correct. It is Republicans that are frantically trying to come to another deal before the end of the year, not Democrats.
As I've said, Democrats have more to gain by stalling.
Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:31 PM
Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:38 PM
Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:52 PM
Exactly why the fiscal cliff is the best route to go. This was the negotiation that already was, not needs to be done. They made these decisions, now we should hold their feet to it and allow the tax cuts to expire for all, and let the automatic spending cuts go into effect.
Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:55 PM
Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:58 PM
What about the fear of falling into another recession?
That is the real fear.
Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:08 PM
That is your opinion that a recession will eventually happen. That is where we differ. I have more faith then you.
The economy has been growing and showing signs of life. To kill that with the CLIFF now would to put it simply, be not good.
Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:11 PM
Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:14 PM