The logic of raising taxes on the wealthy by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The logic of raising taxes on the wealthy

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Monday, August 22, 2011 05:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4258
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, August 19, 2011 7:17 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I have to say I'm with Rap on this one: the govt. Had a surplus. That means it was overcharging taxpayers. What increased the deficit were the wars and homeland security and bush's oil subsidies and his Rx drug program. Tax cuts don't add to the deficit, only borrowing money does, and yiu only borrow money when you're spending money. bush spent a lot of unnecessary money. This idea that tax cuts cost money and need to be paid for is voodoo.

I'm sorry, DT, but this is just plain idiotic.

This is akin to saying that if you're paying down your personal debt by taking a second job, you're being overpaid.

There was a surplus, BECAUSE the government was taking in more than it spent, IN ORDER to pay down the national debt.

That's something that (according to SOME folks around here) is supposed to be a big fucking deal, and something we're supposed to do and care about doing.

What increased the Bush deficits was all of the above PLUS slashing taxes PLUS giving away "tax rebates" by sending out checks to every taxpayer.

Unless y'all can explain to me how you plan to pay down the debt simply by cutting revenues. I tried to do that with my credit card company, but they didn't want to play.

OF COURSE tax cuts add to deficits. Budgets are based on PROJECTED revenue, and if you wait until after you pass a budget and then slash the revenue that would be necessary to support that budget, you are indeed adding to the deficit.

Bush added to the deficit AND slashed revenue, doubling the negative impact on the budget.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 12:05 AM

DREAMTROVE

Mike

Nice idea, but not true.

The amount paid on the debt only changes if the debt is renegotiated. No one has done that, or shown any interest in doing that. As it stands, the payments on the debt were part of the budget. Ergo. A surplus means excessive taxation.

What sunk Bush was his near trillion dollar increas in spending, which is also what's sinking Obama.

If you want to renegotiate the debt, I am all in favor, but no one outside of Ron Paul is suggesting doing so.

Here's what I would do:

1) kill the interagency debt. Done is done. Make future safeguards against it happening again.

2) kill this corporate licensing of the printing of money, and any dedbt created by it. Any debt owing to the FED member banks should also be discounted by the amount already paid to these parties in bogus interest.

3) cancel the mortgage debt. It's not the govt's respomsibility and it just artificially inflates the housing market, hurting working people for the benefit of very rich people.

This cuts use down to 1/4 of the debt remaining.

Next, I would renegotiate the debt so that I'm borrowing from zero or near zero lenders like japan who have little or no agenda monkeying history in the us govt, and in a manner where if one creditor misbehaves in this manner their debt can be easily transferred to someone else.

I would use this money to pay off all the problem creditors and hier interest loans from foreign nations and us bond holders.

I could easily put the remaining debt on ten year repayment plan, and still fall under budget.

Cut out all payments to wealthy individuals and corporations for any services above market cost. Allow voters to choose how much to spend on everything, by allowing them to earmark their tax dollars, and allowing them to vote on how much they want to pay for each service. If this means we get more money for hiring teachers than we need, we can invent new education systems.

Do away with subsidies. This is a free market economy guys.

End the empire.

Healthcare should probably be a state expense. People make a mistake comparing america to 192 countries. Almost all of those countries are states, and are run very much the way US states are run. Each of them can handle it, and US states are the same, only richer. If Mexico can do it, so can Texas and California.

Also, allow govt. Negotiation for healthcare prices like we already do for the VA.

Redistribute soc. Sec. Tax to 1-3% with no cap at 100k for taxation, limit payouts by obama's means testing plan, ie, income, assets for soc sec should invoke the same means test as we're already using on disability.

End the police state. If any state wants homeland security, let them budget for it, if that's how the voters vote, but don't impose it from above.

Reduce the standing army to a reserve,with a small force able to aid allies who request our assistance. Have an actual process whereby those allies get control over the troops we send, so that we can't just invade people.

The nat'l guard is more than sufficient to protect america.

Get rid of any govt. Agency doing paperwork and replace them with an automated system.

Move the balance of taxes away from income and towards profits. Income tax should be levied on the change in your bank balance, rather than your paycheck. If you cleared 100k you can pay tax on that. If you have a salary of 100k but had to spend it all, i don't see why you should pay tax on that. I don't even care how you spent it, you put it back in the economy, that was undoubtedly a better use of it than building more bombs or giving a bailout to a derivatives trading firm.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 4:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Low prices are the result of a free market.

No. Low prices are the results of a competitive market. But competitive markets are not the result of capitalism since capitalism always ends up in monopolism. That is one flaw in every libertarian's approach.

Indeed, if there is ONE THING that EVERY capitalist hates it's competition.

Think about it: the goal of every business is to get MORE MARKET SHARE. Ideally, 100%.

Now, most small businesses aren't big enough to impose their will on their market, but sooner or later one to two businesses will emerge that will swallow the market whole along with most of its small competitors: Walmart, News Corporation/ Fox, AT&T, BoA/ChaseMorgan, ConAgra, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, United HealthGroup/ Wellpoint.

If there is a legitimate role for government, it would be to ensure that monopolization doesn't occur.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 4:59 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, I'll look up a few facts...not facts on everything you claim, DT, because your claims mean nothing to me; they are OPINIONS, nothing more, unless you choose to back them up they mean little or nothing. Ergo, I don't pay a lot of attention to your points, except that the weirdest ones just beg comment. Like the insanity of

Quote:
When McCain was campaigning for Obama whom he worships.

That you might actually BELIEVE McCain didn't want his last shot at the gold ring so bad he could taste it is hysterical.

But just on the cost of health care, you stated as fact:

Quote:
You see right away our soending is far higher than other free market systems that deliver univeral care and other govts with universal welfare programs.

Let's see how that holds up:

Quote:
Reuters: "The US spends more on health care than any other country in the world but has higher rates of infant mortality, diabetes and other ills than many developed countries"

I not only took the time to look it up, but to break it into separate sections, resize and upload it to Photobucket. So:

Percent of GDP:

Per Capita:

Mortality, etc. Rates:

You want a first-person example:

Quote:
I live in Norway. I have 3 children. When I was a student at the (free) university, the hospital found out that my daughter had a heart problem (actually two). We traveled to the hospital (we got a refund for the trip, parking etc) to examine the heart with x-ray and ultrasound etc. Then a few weeks later, she had a surgery (operated through a vein in her thigh in order to give a small scar). The operation and all the checkups were free. That is good to know when you are a student with little money.

I didn't have to do some illegal stuff to get enough money, and I didn't need no insurance

(All material from http://www.visualeconomics.com/healthcare-costs-around-the-world_2010-
03-01/)

Story is absolutely on point:

Quote:
if you make a claim - and when asked to back it, answer with "Do it yourself"....well, screw that, bud. You make a claim, you back it.

If you choose to be part of the conversation, certainly you can say whatever you want. You can claim "You see right away that the sky is purple", or that McCain worships Obama, but we have no reason to take what you say seriously unless you can show us from where you got the information so we can decide for OURSELVES if it is relevant. That is how a debate is done. That you have repeatedly refused to do so indicates that you feel free to make any claim you wish and expect us to believe it; that is how Raptor and his ilk do things; it's not debate, it's not even a conversation, and it makes communication impossible.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 5:10 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

How about another :easily-accessible" figure? You said

Quote:
Military payroll is around 95 billion, that's readily accessible,

Using "readily accessible", Wikipedia gives a breakdown of what the military costs. Under "Military Personnel", it gives the figure of $154.2 billion as budgeted for fiscal year 2010. It breaks down all the other aspects as well, if anyone's interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budg
et_Breakdown_for_2012

This is just to point out, yet again, that for some reason you seem to think you are the authority on many, many things, and that we should take your word for those things, but if we would like to look from where you got the material you post, you are unwilling to back up virtually any of your OPINIONS.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:30 AM

DREAMTROVE

You guys just can't stand that you're agreeing with me ;)

Sig,

Competition is what is meant by the term free market. No one said anything about capitalism. Except you, just now.

Niki,

Thanks for the backup. I didn't really have the time. Your data proves the point: those nations which provide universal coverage are doing so for around half what it costs us to cover 13% of the population. Curious that France isn't higher with its own notorious pharma corruption.

ETA: Germany's healthcare plan covers 73 million people. For the US, under the same model, we could cover all 300 million, using your figures above, for approximately the same price we're paying now to insure 39 million. Seems there is a fair amount of inefficiency in our current system.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 3:16 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
You guys just can't stand that you're agreeing with me ;)

...and I thought Raptor was delusional.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Competition is what is meant by the term free market. No one said anything about capitalism. Except you, just now.

Capitalism is all about free markets. Laissez-faire Capitalism would be the most free (from government control or influence).

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Thanks for the backup. I didn't really have the time. Your data proves the point: those nations which provide universal coverage are doing so for around half what it costs us to cover 13% of the population. Curious that France isn't higher with its own notorious pharma corruption.

ETA: Germany's healthcare plan covers 73 million people. For the US, under the same model, we could cover all 300 million, using your figures above, for approximately the same price we're paying now to insure 39 million. Seems there is a fair amount of inefficiency in our current system

Those countries send less per person because of universal coverage. The US is the only full industrializes country that does not provide universal health coverage.

If you paid attention you would know that all those other countries including France control drug prices by telling companies what they can charge.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:27 PM

DREAMTROVE

Sorry, we're way passed this. The discussion on economics has been going on for years. Assume everyone is extremely well versed in the subject.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 21, 2011 7:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

There was an error in my post, one back; my "cut-and-paste" put the wrong quote in. The first quote should have been

Quote:
When McCain was campaigning for Obama whom he worships

hence my remark about McCain not going for the gold ring. I've fixed it.

Where you get the idea that I agree with you on much of anything is beyond me; I provided backup on one point, to show how quickly and easily it could be done; on the other point, I showed you were wrong. Those are the only points I referenced except the McCain thing, where the word "disagree" isn't even strong enough, I think that statement is downright insane.

I find it absolutely fascinating that you don't have time to back up your claims, yet you have no problem at all finding time to be one of the most prolific posters here. There's a dichotomy there somewhere--unless you type a heckofalot faster than I do, or Frem does (both of us being the other two consistently-long posters), it takes a while for you to type your myriad long posts. So there's no excuse for you not having the time to back up your claims.

If a discussion has been had previously which you think covers the issue, why do you join further ones? I do because there are always either new voices or voices that haven't been around for a while, and it's always good to hear different perspectives. Given you apparently believe your perspective is the ONLY valid one, I wonder why you come back to put your two cents' worth in, again, on subjects you feel have been dealt with previously. Certainly you can, nobody's saying otherwise, but the fact remains: If you want to be taken seriously, you need to back up your claims.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 21, 2011 7:48 AM

DREAMTROVE

Niki

Lol

Every election for a while has been a sham. McCain made Obama look like Robin Hood. If you actually listened to Obama by himself, he forwarded the platform of Bush. He even said in an interview that his administration would represent no real policy shift over that of George W. Bush. He told an appalled Lara Logan that he intended to bring competence to Bush agenda.

Personally, I didn't want competence brought to the Bush agenda. I didn't want the agenda at all. What I find funny is not only the lefties who hated Bush adoring Obama, but the righties who adored Bush hating Obama.

But seriously, McCain was trying to lose, so was John Kerry, and Bob Dole. This is pretty common.

This about it. If you were running, wouldn't you do the same? Hire a shill to win the opposing primary?

John Kerry and George Bush were fraternity brothers. That's not an election, it's a hazing.

So, I ahree with your shampaigns, I think it's a shamocracy. Shamrockracy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 21, 2011 8:03 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
But seriously, McCain was trying to lose, so was John Kerry, and Bob Dole. This is pretty common.

In my opinion, that is a patently insane statement. Have you ANYTHING to back it up? Or anything to show it's "common"??

Do you not see the stupidity of spending the enormous amounts of money, time and effort of an election just to put someone ELSE in office, when someone who would be embraced by that party's followers could be elected instead, totally ridiculous? In your VIEW, putting someone else in office would trick those in that party into following him. But it would make everyone in the OTHER party hate him. Where's the gain? I think you have too much imagination, personally, and you look for subversive intent where the simpler intent is what's real.

McCain isn't an ideologue, and if you think that old man wasn't doing everything he could think of to win, knowing full well it was his last chance, you are deluding yourself. If you think people actually WANT to go through all the rigors of a campaign just so the other guy can win, you are ignoring ego, ideology, partisanship and common sense. If you think these guys didn't really WANT to be President, you're ignoring completely all the things they did to get to the point of being nominated for President...going way back in their pasts!

Somoe of the things you extrapolate from your own opinions into being "fact" absolutel amaze me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 22, 2011 1:26 AM

DREAMTROVE

Niki,

You pay ANY attention to these campaigns?

If Kerry wanted to win, he could have opposed any of Bush's unpopular policies, those being ones that the majority of people opposed. He didn't. He took partisan positions. He might have suggested ending an unpopular war, not "more war."

If Kerry wanted to win, he might have questioned the election. When he joined the suit to investigate the Ohio election, he did so only to shut it down immediately, to ensure that Michael Badnarik didn't install John Kerry as president. That suit later (a couple months ago) seems to have concluded that Kerry won Ohio (little good it does him now.)

John McCain's campaign is the same way. If you listen to what Obama says in 2008, none of it is inspirational or sounds like the sort of person you might want in office. He comes across as a flat stale neocon.

What really had people motivated was what John McCain said about Obama. That's where we get the idea that Obama would end the war and bring us economic equality. Obama never said he'd do those things, but the voters believed it because John McCain said it.

If John McCain really wanted to win he would have run on his own record, he would have opposed the war, rather than said that we should be there for the next hundred years.

If you watch the speeches and debates of the presidents in the last 5 elections with an ear to the idea that some of them might be actively trying to lose, it seems obvious that this is what's going on.

If you don't, it sounds like they are insane and stupid. People are rarely dumb, and so if they're doing something dumb, chances are they have another agenda.

Bush may have been an idiot, but that's not why his govt. did idiotic things.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 22, 2011 5:48 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes I pay attention to campaaigns. But

Quote:
If you watch the speeches and debates of the presidents in the last 5 elections with an ear to the idea that some of them might be actively trying to lose, it seems obvious that this is what's going on.

"Seems obvious" to you, not to me. I'd like to hear what others have to say. I believe that your perception is subjective, that a lot of what you write indicates you see things with an eye to conspiracies that I don't believe you exist. Not to say there aren't conspiracies, just that I think you're over-sensitive to the possibility of them.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE