Politics

[FiddySpence]

Originally Posted by TheSniper26 And just think of all the gold bricks he'd have to lug around everywhere. Poor son of a bitch.

[Tambourine Man]

The Republicans aren't serious about dramatically cutting spending or taxes. It's all a show. In the end they always agree to spend more money.

The thing is government is so big that taxing the rich isn't enough...tax hikes are coming for everybody

[FiddySpence]

i don't think filling the Republican party with more Grover Norquist's is going to help, man.

right now your party (or at least the one you are closer to) is in shambles for a reason. it's in a rebranding phase that is desperately needed as it realizes how out of touch it is with the current generation of voters and how much more out of touch it's going to get if it sticks to the platform it's been running on the last few decades. this is healthy and necessary and in the end could result in a Republican party that you can possibly support. tough on taxes and more moderate on social issues and immigration.

[brian3641]

Originally Posted by Tambourine Man Republicans won't even stand up for the rich, who are massively over-taxed, and say enough is enough.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by TheSniper26 Yeah it's about time the rich caught a break.

The logic behind raising taxes on the rich is uncomfortable for me. When your justification for doing something is merely "because they can afford it," that sets a dangerous precedent.

Technically I can "afford" to pay more taxes too.

[FiddySpence]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor The logic behind raising taxes on the rich is uncomfortable for me. When your justification for doing something is merely "because they can afford it," that sets a dangerous precedent. Technically I can "afford" to pay more taxes too.

"because they can afford it" isn't the only reason or even the main reason. it's an answer to the posed question "why the rich instead of another group or alternative" and it's a valid answer to that question. the lib's case is that trickle down hasn't been working and it's time to try growing from the middle. i think it's fair to at least give it a shot. and bitching when it isn't working as fast as you'd like after 3 and a half years doesn't count.

[brian3641]

Originally Posted by FiddySpence "because they can afford it" isn't the only reason or even the main reason. it's an answer to the posed question "why the rich instead of another group or alternative" and it's a valid answer to that question. the lib's case is that trickle down hasn't been working and it's time to try growing from the middle. i think it's fair to at least give it a shot. and bitching when it isn't working as fast as you'd like after 3 and a half years doesn't count.

Trickle down is a fantasy.

It's not about who can afford what. I think looking at it percentage-wise is important. Let's, just for example, use 20% as a number. 20% of a middle class persons salary would obviously be less than 20% of the upper class. They shouldn't both pay the same amount.

[Tambourine Man]

Taxes will go up for everybody eventually. There aren't enough rich people to tax to pay for our massive government.

[brian3641]

Originally Posted by Tambourine Man Taxes will go up for everybody eventually. There aren't enough rich people to tax to pay for our massive government.

There are more than enough. They just need to be taxed at an appropriate amount without all of their loophole tax breaks.

[SoftMacho]

Originally Posted by brian3641 Trickle down is a fantasy. It's not about who can afford what. I think looking at it percentage-wise is important. Let's, just for example, use 20% as a number. 20% of a middle class persons salary would obviously be less than 20% of the upper class. They shouldn't both pay the same amount.

You realize that we have a tiered federal tax income system, right? As in, the more you make, the higher percentage you pay? I mean, it works out to be something like the richest 1% pay half the federal income taxes and the poorest 1% pay 0 of those taxes.

[inmytree]

Well, in general it's probably a good idea to at least attempt to pay for the programs we decide we need.

I guess this thread was inevitable.

[SoftMacho]

Originally Posted by brian3641 There are more than enough. They just need to be taxed at an appropriate amount without all of their loophole tax breaks.

This, just like your previous comment, is completely false. One could argue, and I would agree, that tax revenues need to increase, but the major problem is spending.

[FiddySpence]

Originally Posted by inmytree I guess this thread was inevitable.

yeahhh.... it was only a matter of time.

[Tambourine Man]

Originally Posted by brian3641 There are more than enough. They just need to be taxed at an appropriate amount without all of their loophole tax breaks.

No. We are raising taxes on the rich and still having a 1 trillion dollar deficit. That's a really bad record. If you keep taxing the rich, they will renounce their citizenship and leave. There are limits

[inmytree]

Originally Posted by SoftMacho You realize that we have a tiered federal tax income system, right? As in, the more you make, the higher percentage you pay? I mean, it works out to be something like the richest 1% pay half the federal income taxes and the poorest 1% pay 0 of those taxes.

Our rates are progressive, albeit not nearly as much as they used to be. The tax rate for wealthiest Americans have lowered over 35 percent in the last fifty years or so.

[brian3641]

Originally Posted by SoftMacho This, just like your previous comment, is completely false. One could argue, and I would agree, that tax revenues need to increase, but the major problem is spending.

Spending is a major problem, but what should you cut? Medicare or defense spending? I know PBS is sucking us dry.

[FiddySpence]

Originally Posted by SoftMacho This, just like your previous comment, is completely false. One could argue, and I would agree, that tax revenues need to increase, but the major problem is spending.

i don't think anyone here would argue that spending is a problem.

but it'll take a whole lot more finesse to effectively bring spending down than just slashing all social programs so the defense budget can remain more or less intact.

[Tambourine Man]

Originally Posted by SoftMacho This, just like your previous comment, is completely false. One could argue, and I would agree, that tax revenues need to increase, but the major problem is spending.

Yes. Spending automatically goes up every year, so when they talk about draconian cuts they are just talking about spending increasing at a slower pace. We need real cuts, not this bs

[FiddySpence]

Originally Posted by Tambourine Man No. We are raising taxes on the rich and still having a 1 trillion dollar deficit. That's a really bad record. If you keep taxing the rich, they will renounce their citizenship and leave. There are limits

[inmytree]

That's some Ayn Rand shit right there.