Higher Taxes

19 posts / 0 new

Heck, why not. Middle class income earners keep faaar too much as it is.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iKz6hw1OFRhp4oE-Vb7atBMtnxTwD9GGCVE00

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

Comments

Don't fret so much. When the Deficit Reduction Commision makes its recommendations, we'll be put on austerity programs. Social safety nets gone, higher taxes for the middle class, and lower taxes for the super rich so they can create jobs to help reduce the deficits.

We'll follow the road of every other country that's been ruined by bailouts to save finance...we'll quickly make the real economy worse.

I'd suggest becoming a billionaire quick so you'll get in on the tax reductions when they appear..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Good idea.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

Is this a surprise? Someone has to pay for Republican free-lunch policies and behavior.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I don’t mind higher taxes if I thought they were spending my money wisely. Unfortunately, Higher Taxes just means higher spending. Not wise and efficient spending that would include debt reduction.

Innocent's picture
Innocent
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2010 11:42 am

Probably spending nearly a trillion bucks a year on the military isn't the best use of tax money...nor are the subsidies to corporate treasuries.

Throwing oil co. property taxes in Colo. on to the homeowner probably wasn't a good idea, either.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:

Is this a surprise? Someone has to pay for Republican free-lunch policies and behavior.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is a DEMOCRAT he is the one screaming for higher taxes.

He should be cutting the BUDGET.

brother's picture
brother
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Deficits are made up of two elements. Money in and money out. This country grossly under-taxes its rich people. Any money taxed by the Government is a jobs dollar. This is because every dollar taxed by Government is destined to become somebody's income.

On average, Americans are paying the lowest taxes since Harry Truman. Anybody who is not wealthy will tell you that his tax rates have not decreased over the last 30 years. Who do you think has benefitted from this lowering of taxes?

Taxes are also a way to re-distribute wealth. Low taxes on the rich and stable taxes on the lower classes have been the means to take money from the lower classes and further enrich the wealthy. This has been going on for 30 years.

Taxing money from the rich and spending it on social programs is, by definition, a wise use of taxpayer money, given the need to reverse the re-distributive trend of the last 30 years.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I do agree what's the point of increasing taxes if the money is going to go back into killing people in foreign countries.

Unless the money goes back into your community, probably taxes should stay low in America.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is a DEMOCRAT he is the one screaming for higher taxes.

He should be cutting the BUDGET.

Slabmaster is making a disingenuous point in trying to blame the Democrats for higher taxes if they are pushed through, however the reason for the need for higher taxes is Republican policies and behavior such as the de-regulation that led directly to the latest financial crisis, the needless invasion of Iraq that was kept off the books, the Prescription Drug Beneifit, etc. Spending under Bush sky rocketed compared to that under Clinton, as is shown by the CATO Institute's paper "The Republican Spending Explosion". Also, much of the debt was created by Reagan's needless spending on Cold War nonsense as he increased the debt compared to GDP 20% in his two terms.

Sure, the Dems are in power now and so it falls on them to do what must be done. If one doesn't like higher taxes, then cuts are required and that means either Defense (20% of the budget), Social Security (20%), or Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP (21%) need be cut. So, which and how much?

The problem with slabmaster's ignorant attempt in finger pointing is that the real source is with our democracy in that a) the people are fickle and want both services and low taxes and so put our politicians in the uncomfortable position of providing them and then having to fund them and (b) our current system is truly fascist in that the business elite control our government for their benefit. So, if one doesn't like ever increasing taxation then one had better look at those two issues and especially how business interests spin issues to get enough of the American people to support their agenda ostensibly for the peoples' benefit but in truth fot that of corporate America, as the recent Healthcare "Reform" bill is.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Taxes are not too high, they have risen at the same rate of the cost of living. What IS out of step is incomes of working people. Real wages have not risen very much since 1990.

What has gone down is income taxes on corporations, 1/2 of which pay no incomes taxes yet are profitable enough to spend billions in bonuses even in unprofitable corporations. How many of the corporations that control every aspect of government, media and your life are even US corporations.

Taxes are higher in Europe on individuals but a MUCH higher percentage of federal spending goes to services for citizens such as first class education, health care and safety-net services.

Of course they can afford a higher quality of life, Europe does not try to occupy 173 countries, the number of countries that have US military bases.

Why do the rich deserve the cut after cut of their taxes? The claim by the ultra right wing corporatists is that if the obscenely wealthy do not have unbelievably high income subsidized by every worker, they will not invest their money in business that creates more jobs.

Sounds good on Beck, Fox and Rush shows but in reality it is just the opposite of reality. The most profitable corporations are those which systematically destroy the middle and working class by closing plants and shipping jobs overseas, or if they do need a few workers in the US, the new jobs they do create are below the living wage level.

One small proposal. Make bonuses and salaries of corporate heads based on the percentage of taxes submitted to the US treasury. If they do a good job and create profit, their reward is based on paying the appropriate taxes by their corporations. Same with Dividends.

I live in a country that has been able to sustain a steady increase in wages and GDP for 10 years. The average has been of 8.5% per year in domestic product. The country? The Russian Federation. I use this as an example of what can occur if change is allowed. They did a few things differently for example they tax the people's income at a low rate and derive most federal income from two sources; duties on imports and exports, and heavy investment of the Sovereign Fund into domestic business and industries to earn income. By having high duties, foreign companies build plants in this country to avoid the duties which employs local citizens(the direct opposite of how the US works). As a result the 40% import duty on foreign made cars to this, the largest car market in Europe, 13 major car companies have built plants in the country, employing hundreds of thousands of people. The US does it differently, it allows free export of capital, subsidizes industries that export jobs to other countries and provides very low tax rates through millions of loop holes in the corporation written tax code.

The results of focusing on shifting the taxes to foreign users and consumption, the salaries and pensions of the people have risen much faster than the cost of living, causing one of the largest mass movements into middle class since the 1950s when the G.I. Bill of Rights created the US middle class.

Every US public policy I can think of, undermines the middle and working class and strengthens the corporations in further taking advantage of the working classes. Can anyone name one benefit to middle and working class people that was a result of dropping corporate taxes, or import duties? Who was that for? Not the citizens, that's for sure.

Stanj's picture
Stanj
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:

Slabmaster is making a disingenuous point in trying to blame the Democrats for higher taxes if they are pushed through, however the reason for the need for higher taxes is Republican policies and behavior such as the de-regulation that led directly to the latest financial crisis, the needless invasion of Iraq that was kept off the books, the Prescription Drug Beneifit, etc. Spending under Bush sky rocketed compared to that under Clinton, as is shown by the CATO Institute's paper "The Republican Spending Explosion". Also, much of the debt was created by Reagan's needless spending on Cold War nonsense as he increased the debt compared to GDP 20% in his two terms.

Sure, the Dems are in power now and so it falls on them to do what must be done. If one doesn't like higher taxes, then cuts are required and that means either Defense (20% of the budget), Social Security (20%), or Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP (21%) need be cut. So, which and how much?

The problem with slabmaster's ignorant attempt in finger pointing is that the real source is with our democracy in that a) the people are fickle and want both services and low taxes and so put our politicians in the uncomfortable position of providing them and then having to fund them and (b) our current system is truly fascist in that the business elite control our government for their benefit. So, if one doesn't like ever increasing taxation then one had better look at those two issues and especially how business interests spin issues to get enough of the American people to support their agenda ostensibly for the peoples' benefit but in truth fot that of corporate America, as the recent Healthcare "Reform" bill is.

Jeff,

In a year and a half, Obama has QUADRUPLED the debt of Bush's overspending.

You can write volume of smoke and bullshit trying to divert the listeners attention to 30 years ago all day, but the facts are that the current spendthrift in chief is so out of control without a clue, we may end up like that bastion of prosperity...Europe.

No thanks.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am
Quote Slabmaster:Obama has QUADRUPLED the debt of Bush's overspending.
Not exactly right. The debt has quadrupled because Obama has failed to adequately tax large corporations and rich people.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
In a year and a half, Obama has QUADRUPLED the debt of Bush's overspending.

You can write volume of smoke and bullshit trying to divert the listeners attention to 30 years ago all day, but the facts are that the current spendthrift in chief is so out of control without a clue, we may end up like that bastion of prosperity...Europe.

No thanks.

And any spending to date is due directly to dealing with what the Bush administration started, such as our military interventions, or what Republicans started, such as deregulation.

You can ignore facts and write volumes of smoke and bullshit trying to divert the readers' attention to the present all day and ignore what got us to this point, but the facts are that the current administration is forced to deal with the problems created by the past.

Do yourself a favor and read Nixon's solution to the health care crisis and you'll see that certain costs are the result of choosing to not act to correct problems previously. Go ahead, blame Obama, because that's what you do in your strident support of all things Republican, conservative, and corporatist even to the point of not knowing how partisan you are. This may serve to fog the truth because the American people are pretty stupid and tend to pay more attention to sound bites, but the truth is that it is conservative ideology that got us to this point.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Jeff,

1 trillion on a "stimulous" that didn't stimulate anything.

Increasing spending and troop levels in the 2 wars in the middle east. Remember, he ran on having us out by may 2010.

Obamacare boondoggle scam. Untold trillions.

We are now 13 trillion dollars in debt and rising.

I'd take Bush's insane spending any day at this point.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

The national debt was around 6 trillion when Bush took office, and, to be generous, was about 11 Trillion at the end of his term. The budget deficit during Obama's first year was largely the result of spending plans in place before he took office, minus the stimulus, which hasn't yet been spent. So let's call the "Obama" debt $2 trillion, the Bush debt $5 Trillion.

But that's not really the end of the analysis. Bush inherited, yes, a surplus, then immediately squandered it with a series of tax cuts, even while fighting two wars. He blew out spending in every category, including a new, totally unfunded entitlement that is perhaps the single most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation any of us will see.

Really, Bush is in a class all by himself. My favorite line of his administration regarding spending was this from Dick Cheney: "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms, this (another round of irresponsible tax cuts that will explode the deficit) is our due!" It would be difficult to better summarize GOP fiscal policy.

The stimulus might or might not succeed in turning around our broken economy, but that's because the economy was trashed from within, not that the stimulus didn't work. It did what it was intended to do, which was put a floor under unemployment and consumption and prevent a complete collapse of both the real economy and the financial system.

Jasper's picture
Jasper
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote slabmaster:

Jeff,

1 trillion on a "stimulous" that didn't stimulate anything........

We are now 13 trillion dollars in debt and rising.

I'd take Bush's insane spending any day at this point.

Who told you that the stimulas did not do anything? Not an economist surely. There is a general consensus among economists that preventing the total curtailment of credit and preventing major industries from collapsing that a depression possibly deeper and harder to recover from was avoided. A lot less triggered the 1929 collapse and there was a small fraction of the dependency of business and every aspect of the society on credit, at least for short term payroll and supply lines of credit. If the tea-baggers and Palin were in power and used your simplistic view of a very complex interdependency of banking, employment, foreign capital sources and public services, there likely would have been more dire consequences that would have dwarfed the meltdown that was the Great Depression.

Didi you know that a large portion of the TARP money has been returned to the treasury? Did you know that GM did not have to lay off 180,000 people and the suppliers did not have to shut-down saving 2,000,000 jobs, and that GM has begun paying, with interest, buying its paper back from the government?

OK, what would you have done? Let the entire economy collapse to spite a class you do not like;workers and home owners? What would you and your superstar Palin done with suddenly 50% unemployment and no ability to borrow? The tea baggers know buzz words and repeat them as instructed by the likes o Palin. Beck, Limbaugh, etc without knowing what the ramifications of their ignorance would be. Remember, the right wing conservatives and corporatist were in charge for a very long time, in fact they are still in charge so blaming Obama for what has been brewing under conservative's watch for 2 decades is really really dumb.

The country IS a mess, but there is no evidence that putting the neo-cons and corportists republicans back in charge would change or help anything. There is a good chance that the damage to the country from following republican control might be too great to repair. We have decades of deregulation, destruction of unions and the working class and middle class. shipping jobs overseas, and corporate welfare all of which the republicans fought tooth and nail for, too much history to believe that they would change their agenda to actually help the country instead of treating it as a feeding trough to gorge themselves with public money. Give us one reason to believe they have changed. And give any example of a proposal or program of theirs that did not further enrich the wealthy and further damage the middle class?

The problems are too great to trust the republicans and their corporate and media sponsors to get their hands on the treasury and public policy again. Next time there might not be a calm smart liberal to clean up after them.

Stanj's picture
Stanj
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Stanj:

Who told you that the stimulas did not do anything? Not an economist surely. There is a general consensus among economists that preventing the total curtailment of credit and preventing major industries from collapsing that a depression possibly deeper and harder to recover from was avoided. A lot less triggered the 1929 collapse and there was a small fraction of the dependency of business and every aspect of the society on credit, at least for short term payroll and supply lines of credit. If the tea-baggers and Palin were in power and used your simplistic view of a very complex interdependency of banking, employment, foreign capital sources and public services, there likely would have been more dire consequences that would have dwarfed the meltdown that was the Great Depression.

Didi you know that a large portion of the TARP money has been returned to the treasury? Did you know that GM did not have to lay off 180,000 people and the suppliers did not have to shut-down saving 2,000,000 jobs, and that GM has begun paying, with interest, buying its paper back from the government?

OK, what would you have done? Let the entire economy collapse to spite a class you do not like;workers and home owners? What would you and your superstar Palin done with suddenly 50% unemployment and no ability to borrow? The tea baggers know buzz words and repeat them as instructed by the likes o Palin. Beck, Limbaugh, etc without knowing what the ramifications of their ignorance would be. Remember, the right wing conservatives and corporatist were in charge for a very long time, in fact they are still in charge so blaming Obama for what has been brewing under conservative's watch for 2 decades is really really dumb.

The country IS a mess, but there is no evidence that putting the neo-cons and corportists republicans back in charge would change or help anything. There is a good chance that the damage to the country from following republican control might be too great to repair. We have decades of deregulation, destruction of unions and the working class and middle class. shipping jobs overseas, and corporate welfare all of which the republicans fought tooth and nail for, too much history to believe that they would change their agenda to actually help the country instead of treating it as a feeding trough to gorge themselves with public money. Give us one reason to believe they have changed. And give any example of a proposal or program of theirs that did not further enrich the wealthy and further damage the middle class?

The problems are too great to trust the republicans and their corporate and media sponsors to get their hands on the treasury and public policy again. Next time there might not be a calm smart liberal to clean up after them.

Why not pay the banksters another trillion? It worked so well the first couple times. Thom loves the banksters, and apparently you feel greasing them helps our economic problems.

2010 will tell how much America wants to endure more Democrat led decision making and spending. My guess is "change you can believe in" will rule the day.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am
1 trillion on a "stimulous" that didn't stimulate anything.

Increasing spending and troop levels in the 2 wars in the middle east. Remember, he ran on having us out by may 2010.

Obamacare boondoggle scam. Untold trillions.

We are now 13 trillion dollars in debt and rising.

I'd take Bush's insane spending any day at this point.

Talk about not stimulating anything, your post says nothing. Where's any support? You never post anything but your rambling opinion. You never say anything but right-wing talking points.

The fact is that many economists have stated that between Bush and Obama, the economy has stabilized and the spending has helped avoid a depression and minimized the recession. So, where's your proof that nothing's been stimulated? Stability isn't good enough for you? I'm surprised that you have the nards to complain when it is conservative ideology that got us here, privatize profits and socialize loss. This is the direct result of your world view, but you don't see it.

The facts are that a) our economy is a mature economy and the wealthy don't like the returns on "investment" and so they financialized and deregulated our economy and (b) growth is demanded. Therefore, intead of railing about what a Democratic President does, you should look at what conservative economic theory has created, a fascist/corporatist state that runs government for its benefit at our expense. You also ignore the fact that the even more corporatist Republicans refused to participate in the democratic process that created the health care reform bill. Why? Because they are even worse than the Democrats with regards to protecting business interests, in this case those controlling our health care system for their benefit.

Your whining about government spending completely misses the point and because you don't see what the problem is. You'll never solve the problem as you support speculation and control of our government for business and the wealthy. But that is your point, promote business interests and ignore the inconvenient truths so that the status quo in which business elites control our government is maintained.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The other way we're subsidizing Walmart...

Most of us know how taxpayers subsidize Walmart's low wages with billions of dollars in Medicaid, food stamps, and other financial assistance for workers. But, did you know that we're also subsidizing the retail giant by paying the cost of their environmental destruction.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system