"Pledge to America" Unveiled by Republicans

[BigBallinStalin]

The REAL truth is that it is average wage earners buying things, spending money on services, working to produce things that make our country great, NOT a few people who decide to plop down money in a gamble to make millions. Sure, those plopping down money are smart and sure, to a point, they have a right to make money, BUT only to a point. For the past 4 decades, they have taken more and more from the working class and drove us into recession.

But what has the working class gained over the past 4 decades? Wouldn't you say that overall their quality of life and standard of living of 5 years ago is better than 40 years ago?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm siding with tzor and tgd on this one, in the sense that I'd like to know the answer to their question.

$250,000 seems too low. That would cut into the micro of micro businesses, and I really have trouble understanding why the government would want them taxed, instead of simply shifting the burden to a slightly smaller percentage.

I guess maybe they feel that's the number that has the least negative affect on the economy due to taxation... Or maybe someone pulled it out of his ass?

It is INDIVIDUAL incomes, not businesses. Only if someone is a sole proprietor and showed $250K in profit (not gross, but profit) would this kick in. Else... it applies only to that portion the person takes as income, not the amounts they invest back into the business, split with various partners or the overall net worth of the company. Many people have companies worth a million or two, but only a few actually take 250K in profit. For one thing, a lot of what they "own" (cars, computers, even much of their house, etc.) is often technically classified as company property.

Even so, I believe the divide is fairly arbitrary. I suspect it is based on traditional divides between middle and upper class, but I have not found anything to verify (or contradict) that.

Note, just to be clear, I am in no way fixated on $250K as some kind of magic number. I actually do think it might be a tad low, but I was not consulted . Given the state of things, I believe there has to be a line drawn somewhere. That was the number chosen, the number Obama swore by in his campaign and so its the number we have.

The real point that matters is that most people making 250K can afford to pay a little more in taxes without it either cutting heavily into their food budgets, their kids schooling or other real necessities. The same is absolutely NOT true for the majority of us, most with incomes well below that.

The REAL truth is that it is average wage earners buying things, spending money on services, working to produce things that make our country great, NOT a few people who decide to plop down money in a gamble to make millions. Sure, those plopping down money are smart and sure, to a point, they have a right to make money, BUT only to a point. For the past 4 decades, they have taken more and more from the working class and drove us into recession.

But what has the working class gained over the past 4 decades? Wouldn't you say that overall their quality of life and standard of living of 5 years ago is better than 40 years ago?

No, though I have to qualify that.
Technology has advanced, particularly in the medical arena and computers. So, in that sense, that is, independent of income and such, our ability to have a decent life has improved. (though both those issues are debateable in that computers divide as well as unite and edify; health care has expanded, but more and more people cannot afford it or have to give up all they have earned to use it)

However, when you talk about measures impacted by income and such, the truth is that many people only SEEM to have a better lifestyle. Look a bit behind doors and you see :

A. families where both mom and dad are now working, instead of just dad. So, 2 wage earners are needed to even just "maintain" a standard similar to what our parent's had.

B. even with that, many depend upon grandparents and such to get by. Ask around and you often find that everything from kid's school to clothes and vacations came from "Grandma and Grandpa", not parents.

C. Credit. Americans have amassed huge amounts of debt maintaining those "life styles".. often well beyond their real means.

D. many people have done things like delve into 401K's, etc to "maintain".

All of this pretty much hit the fan 2 years ago. Part of why it is taking so long for people to recognize a recovery is that instead of relying on those "false" sources above more and more people are finally living within their means.. and they have found those "means" have greatly shrunk. People still do need to buy things like food, etc. However, a LOT of "extras" are just "gone" or diminished.

The hard part is that unless we really and truly fundamentally change how we do things, unless we really and truly start operating in sustainable fashions, then we will be headed for worse than just another recession. And, I don't know that there will be a return from that one. That is why heading down this blind, Republican or even Tea Party path is so very dangerous (not that I like the real Democratic path much better, but at least it gets a bit further in the correct direction). The problem today is not too many taxes. Waste is absolutely a factor, but is also inherent in anything the size of the US.. government or private. (In fact, there tends to be more real waste in private enterprise, its just "hidden" sometimes a bit better). The PROBLEM is not looking far enough into the future and deciding that we will take some pain today so that our great grandchildren won't suffer spasms of utter agony later. Until we are willing to consider our great grandchildren's lives and lifestyles of at least as much value as our own.. folks will continue to put off paying the Piper and just keep "partying".

[PLAYER57832]

The REAL truth is that it is average wage earners buying things, spending money on services, working to produce things that make our country great, NOT a few people who decide to plop down money in a gamble to make millions. Sure, those plopping down money are smart and sure, to a point, they have a right to make money, BUT only to a point. For the past 4 decades, they have taken more and more from the working class and drove us into recession.

Thank you for admitting to your socialistic mentality.

Like I said.. much easier to just throw out terms you consider slurrs than to actually debate anything! But I am through attempting to educate you as to what socialism really means. Call me what you will, try debating the concepts, not just throwing out names.

The very idea that people only have the right to make a certain amount of money is completely antithetical to freedom.

How? Please explain this statement. Because, it really seems to contradict itself.

[Night Strike]

The REAL truth is that it is average wage earners buying things, spending money on services, working to produce things that make our country great, NOT a few people who decide to plop down money in a gamble to make millions. Sure, those plopping down money are smart and sure, to a point, they have a right to make money, BUT only to a point. For the past 4 decades, they have taken more and more from the working class and drove us into recession.

Thank you for admitting to your socialistic mentality.

Like I said.. much easier to just throw out terms you consider slurrs than to actually debate anything! But I am through attempting to educate you as to what socialism really means. Call me what you will, try debating the concepts, not just throwing out names.

The very idea that people only have the right to make a certain amount of money is completely antithetical to freedom.

How? Please explain this statement. Because, it really seems to contradict itself.

If you don't have a socialistic mentality, then you are definitely wanting to spread the wealth around. When you put a ceiling on people, you're automatically limiting the potential that they're supposed to have the freedom to achieve. In all honesty, what is the philosophical difference between limiting blacks from owning property and limiting business people from making millions of dollars? You say that the limits on business people are justified, and racists would say that limits on minorities are justified. Almost everybody would say that limits on minorities is an infringement of their rights, so why isn't that the same for the rich? ANY artificial or systematic limit on the abilities of the individual to achieve is inherently not free. To say that people should be limited by the government in how much they make leads to a socialistic government. People should only be limited by their personal abilities and willingness to work hard and take the occasional risk. Letting anybody decide on non-market-based salary caps is preposterous.

[PLAYER57832]

Trickle down just does not work, THAT is what the past 3 decades have shown, no matter how much those folks making millions want to cry about having to pay a tad more in taxes.

Trickle up doesn’t work either. The fact is that there are a few who make gobs of money. Not $250K, not even $2.5M but $25M+ a year. Now, you have to ask yourself “why do they make these gobs of money.” (Or you can remain in your progressive minded “no-where man” world forever.)

If we bring this question to the official department of the obvious the answer is “Because someone lets them.” Baseball players make gobs of money because the owners want them and are willing to pay them gobs of money to keep them. Apparently the fans don’t object and the networks continue to pay lots of money to the teams to broadcast the games. CEOs make gobs of money because the boards of directors think they are worth the money and apparently the stockholders don’t mind (and continue to invest) and the people who use the product are willing to pay for the products.

So riddle me this, Batman, what do sports fans and stock holders have to do with the Federal Government? Why is this cozy relationship a concern to the Federal Government? Isn’t the fact that a CEO makes gobs of money a concern of the workers, the stockholders and the people who buy the products?

Why is this, an excuse for the Federal Government to steal more money from them? Has the great and powerful Wizard of Oz determined that thou shall only make so much gobs of money? (Given the fact that the Great and powerful Wizard of Oz has a number of ways of “making money” that doesn’t count as “making money” in the first place, such as campaign funds designed to keep them perpetually employed.)

If someone makes gobs of money that they have no right to, isn’t the money really due to the persons that they unfairly took the gobs of money from, not the Federal Government?

This is completely alien to the progressive mind set, but then again the progressive mind set is completely alien to the average person.

None of what you say disproves my point.

Trickle up DOES work because when you put more money in average folk's pockets, they tend to spend it. And spending money is where the money that makes our country run really comes from..even though any more it goes through quite a few perambulations on the way up.

And, the difference between sports players and CEOs is that with sports, people ARE being selected for specific talents that will bring in ticket buyers. (not going to get into the details of whether any particular person is rated correctly) The time when this was true for CEOs is long gone. Now, folks pretend that selling products is what its about, but its really about selling stock. And, too often stocks are sold by raping companies, stealing products and resources, etc.

I don't mind that someone made millions by setting up Ebay or google or by inventing great computer programs. I think it was fine that Ford got wealthy by making cars, and even, to a point that Carnegie got wealthy with stell, etc. .. at least in principle. There are specific issues with each, but I am not going to delve into who took who's idea or any of that, or whether someone in the past should have paid a bit more attention to then unknown impacts of pollution, etc. They can fight that out among themselves, its like one king fighting with another over succession.

What matters to me and what matters to the average person is that these folks ARE making money by designing and selling new or better products or even just keeping on selling old standbys. When that turns to making money off products that are Intentionally poor quality, disposable so people will buy more, it is not really helpful to the rest of us in the long run. When they make money by hiring some poor guy in guatamala who will work for $2 a day and not care about such things as whether the chemicals he is working with will kill him in 10 years, then it is downright HARMFUL to the rest of us. When a CEO takes over a company and then proceeds to close down plants, not because they are failing to make money, but because they are not making enough money ... never mind that that company got multitudes of tax breaks and other benefits, made promises (some direct, some inferred) to the communities where they exist.. then that hurts us as a country.

When those same people demand that they be allowed to pay FEWER taxes than the rest of us, when someone who is making a few million is going to say, even in times when our deficit is huge, when our infrastructure is being stretched and broken, that they have no more responsibility or even have less responsibility to pay for it than the rest of us, then it is wrong. When those people want the REST of us to give up senidng our kids to better schools or just taking ANY kind of vacation, etc because they HAVE to have that trip to Bermuda or whatever.. then it is just wrong.

This is not about "not letting people get wealthy" this is about asking wealthy people to pay a bit more so that the rest of us can keep putting food on our tables. This is about saying those people have gotten more and more benefits in the past few decades and now it is time to begin paying up.

[BigBallinStalin]

The real point that matters is that most people making 250K can afford to pay a little more in taxes without it either cutting heavily into their food budgets, their kids schooling or other real necessities. The same is absolutely NOT true for the majority of us, most with incomes well below that.

My main contention with your reasoning is that the money taxed from them is spent by less efficient government programs. That money could've been spent at those people's discretion for whatever goods and services they valued as worth purchasing, which is a more efficient manner of boosting the economy.

Instead of taxing people within that bracket, the government needs to substantially reduce its spending--as we've seen with Obama's plan for withdrawal from Iraq and soon Afghanistan, and the sooner US troops leave there, the sooner the government can stop investing money into endeavors that aren't worth it.

The REAL truth is that it is average wage earners buying things, spending money on services, working to produce things that make our country great, NOT a few people who decide to plop down money in a gamble to make millions. Sure, those plopping down money are smart and sure, to a point, they have a right to make money, BUT only to a point. For the past 4 decades, they have taken more and more from the working class and drove us into recession.

But what has the working class gained over the past 4 decades? Wouldn't you say that overall their quality of life and standard of living of 5 years ago is better than 40 years ago?

No, though I have to qualify that.
Technology has advanced, particularly in the medical arena and computers. So, in that sense, that is, independent of income and such, our ability to have a decent life has improved. (though both those issues are debateable in that computers divide as well as unite and edify; health care has expanded, but more and more people cannot afford it or have to give up all they have earned to use it)

However, when you talk about measures impacted by income and such, the truth is that many people only SEEM to have a better lifestyle. Look a bit behind doors and you see :

A. families where both mom and dad are now working, instead of just dad. So, 2 wage earners are needed to even just "maintain" a standard similar to what our parent's had.

B. even with that, many depend upon grandparents and such to get by. Ask around and you often find that everything from kid's school to clothes and vacations came from "Grandma and Grandpa", not parents.

C. Credit. Americans have amassed huge amounts of debt maintaining those "life styles".. often well beyond their real means.

D. many people have done things like delve into 401K's, etc to "maintain".

All of this pretty much hit the fan 2 years ago. Part of why it is taking so long for people to recognize a recovery is that instead of relying on those "false" sources above more and more people are finally living within their means.. and they have found those "means" have greatly shrunk. People still do need to buy things like food, etc. However, a LOT of "extras" are just "gone" or diminished.

The hard part is that unless we really and truly fundamentally change how we do things, unless we really and truly start operating in sustainable fashions, then we will be headed for worse than just another recession. And, I don't know that there will be a return from that one. That is why heading down this blind, Republican or even Tea Party path is so very dangerous (not that I like the real Democratic path much better, but at least it gets a bit further in the correct direction). The problem today is not too many taxes. Waste is absolutely a factor, but is also inherent in anything the size of the US.. government or private. (In fact, there tends to be more real waste in private enterprise, its just "hidden" sometimes a bit better). The PROBLEM is not looking far enough into the future and deciding that we will take some pain today so that our great grandchildren won't suffer spasms of utter agony later. Until we are willing to consider our great grandchildren's lives and lifestyles of at least as much value as our own.. folks will continue to put off paying the Piper and just keep "partying".[/quote]

You raise very interesting points, but they're going to require a lot of time on my part to comment on. FEAR NOT! I've bookmarked this, and will get back to it soon.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you don't have a socialistic mentality, then you are definitely wanting to spread the wealth around. When you put a ceiling on people, you're automatically limiting the potential that they're supposed to have the freedom to achieve. In all honesty, what is the philosophical difference between limiting blacks from owning property and limiting business people from making millions of dollars? You say that the limits on business people are justified, and racists would say that limits on minorities are justified. Almost everybody would say that limits on minorities is an infringement of their rights, so why isn't that the same for the rich? ANY artificial or systematic limit on the abilities of the individual to achieve is inherently not free.

You bring up a good point, and the freedoms/limitations of businesses and the costs and benefits they bring to society is a very complex subject.

The difference between limiting the freedoms of minorities and the freedoms of businesses is found in the detrimental effects that would arise from each if those limitations were maintained.

One can see the difference, if they answer the following:
What costs do the American people bear when businesses are completely unhindered in their decisions?

What costs do the American people bear when the government maintains a racist agenda?

For racism, simply put, it's not worth the cost. But for businesses... are regulations necessary and to what degree? I'm not sure.

Also as a side note, it's easier to picture the people who suffer from the effects of racism, while it's harder to depict a business as a person, so a business loses the moral imperative people feel in helping one another.

To say that people should be limited by the government in how much they make leads to a socialistic government. People should only be limited by their personal abilities and willingness to work hard and take the occasional risk. Letting anybody decide on non-market-based salary caps is preposterous.

Keep in mind that socialism is both a political philosophy and an economic system, and I'm not 100% certain on this, but there seems to be a difference between a socialist economic system and a command economy.

I don't agree that limitations imposed by the government on business necessarily leads to socialism; it just labels that economy as mixed (mixed between a free market economy and a command economy).

Salary caps are interesting, which also includes the realm of minimum wage. I've heard some compelling arguments that minimum wage contributes to structural unemployment and indirectly promotes racism, but I don't know enough about the subject to clearly expand on it.

[PLAYER57832]

The real point that matters is that most people making 250K can afford to pay a little more in taxes without it either cutting heavily into their food budgets, their kids schooling or other real necessities. The same is absolutely NOT true for the majority of us, most with incomes well below that.

My main contention with your reasoning is that the money taxed from them is spent by less efficient government programs. That money could've been spent at those people's discretion for whatever goods and services they valued as worth purchasing, which is a more efficient manner of boosting the economy.

Instead of taxing people within that bracket, the government needs to substantially reduce its spending--as we've seen with Obama's plan for withdrawal from Iraq and soon Afghanistan, and the sooner US troops leave there, the sooner the government can stop investing money into endeavors that aren't worth it.

The two have little to do with each other. The amount of money kept/saved by granting or not granting these taxes is not going to move any president to go or stay out of any war. I wish maybe it were that simple, but if there is an impact, it will be that money cut out will mean less funding for our solidiers already there.

I wish we had not gone into any war, but once there... we better win. And, I sure don't want our soldiers getting stiffed.

But here is the thing. Its easy to point to government and say "its inefficient" or "money isn't going where I want". Its always true.. and always false. Government's job is not to make a profit. There IS no real profit in war (not in the direct sense ... and the indirect sense.. I just don't want to get into right now), In fact, most of the things a government does are things that are either just too central to everyone to be left in the hands of people looking for profit (and inherently therefore looking out for their self-interest), such as road systems, or that are just not profitable enough to interest for profit business (such as much long term research. Etc. IN other words, they are things that cannot be done well by private industry, not really. (sure, private roads exist.. on very popular routes. but depend on private entities to get a road to Ma parker's house up on the "second hill to the right", and .. she will be waiting a LONG time!).

Similarly, if you say "I don't like....", well.. we ALL have our pet peeves and wishes. We all get some of what we want, hope to elect folks who will get us a bit more of what we want and less of what we don't want. Its give and take. Not perfect (often pretty imperfect), but the thing is its not "efficient" or exactly what anyone exactly wants, because that's not how government works. Ironically enough, if you look at a very big corporation, you see some of those same elements. Its just that there is a group at the top steering it how they want.. and a bunch of other people who have absolutely NO say at all, or only very, very little.

Whether the government gets more or less is irrelevant to all that, though. It is irrelevant to whether the economy is driven more by the upper escheleons or the workers. Republicans, by and large believe in "trickle down".. give the top the benefits and they will get the economy going and make sure the workers have what they need. The Democrats are not much removed, but do pay a bit more attention to the idea of a bottom up economy.

The REAL truth is that it is average wage earners buying things, spending money on services, working to produce things that make our country great, NOT a few people who decide to plop down money in a gamble to make millions. Sure, those plopping down money are smart and sure, to a point, they have a right to make money, BUT only to a point. For the past 4 decades, they have taken more and more from the working class and drove us into recession.

But what has the working class gained over the past 4 decades? Wouldn't you say that overall their quality of life and standard of living of 5 years ago is better than 40 years ago?

No, though I have to qualify that.
Technology has advanced, particularly in the medical arena and computers. So, in that sense, that is, independent of income and such, our ability to have a decent life has improved. (though both those issues are debateable in that computers divide as well as unite and edify; health care has expanded, but more and more people cannot afford it or have to give up all they have earned to use it)

However, when you talk about measures impacted by income and such, the truth is that many people only SEEM to have a better lifestyle. Look a bit behind doors and you see :

A. families where both mom and dad are now working, instead of just dad. So, 2 wage earners are needed to even just "maintain" a standard similar to what our parent's had.

B. even with that, many depend upon grandparents and such to get by. Ask around and you often find that everything from kid's school to clothes and vacations came from "Grandma and Grandpa", not parents.

C. Credit. Americans have amassed huge amounts of debt maintaining those "life styles".. often well beyond their real means.

D. many people have done things like delve into 401K's, etc to "maintain".

All of this pretty much hit the fan 2 years ago. Part of why it is taking so long for people to recognize a recovery is that instead of relying on those "false" sources above more and more people are finally living within their means.. and they have found those "means" have greatly shrunk. People still do need to buy things like food, etc. However, a LOT of "extras" are just "gone" or diminished.

The hard part is that unless we really and truly fundamentally change how we do things, unless we really and truly start operating in sustainable fashions, then we will be headed for worse than just another recession. And, I don't know that there will be a return from that one. That is why heading down this blind, Republican or even Tea Party path is so very dangerous (not that I like the real Democratic path much better, but at least it gets a bit further in the correct direction). The problem today is not too many taxes. Waste is absolutely a factor, but is also inherent in anything the size of the US.. government or private. (In fact, there tends to be more real waste in private enterprise, its just "hidden" sometimes a bit better). The PROBLEM is not looking far enough into the future and deciding that we will take some pain today so that our great grandchildren won't suffer spasms of utter agony later. Until we are willing to consider our great grandchildren's lives and lifestyles of at least as much value as our own.. folks will continue to put off paying the Piper and just keep "partying".

You raise very interesting points, but they're going to require a lot of time on my part to comment on. FEAR NOT! I've bookmarked this, and will get back to it soon.

I look forward to it.

[PLAYER57832]

The REAL truth is that it is average wage earners buying things, spending money on services, working to produce things that make our country great, NOT a few people who decide to plop down money in a gamble to make millions. Sure, those plopping down money are smart and sure, to a point, they have a right to make money, BUT only to a point. For the past 4 decades, they have taken more and more from the working class and drove us into recession.

Thank you for admitting to your socialistic mentality.

Like I said.. much easier to just throw out terms you consider slurrs than to actually debate anything! But I am through attempting to educate you as to what socialism really means. Call me what you will, try debating the concepts, not just throwing out names.

The very idea that people only have the right to make a certain amount of money is completely antithetical to freedom.

How? Please explain this statement. Because, it really seems to contradict itself.

If you don't have a socialistic mentality, then you are definitely wanting to spread the wealth around.

Again, you focus on labels instead of ideas. You hear a few words and then instantly have to pigeon hole them into some pre-defined categories. Problem is, you don't have your categories correct, never mind do you worry too much about whether they actually apply. And, you miss some pretty big details as a result.

When you put a ceiling on people, you're automatically limiting the potential that they're supposed to have the freedom to achieve.

Yes, and are you claiming there is no ceiling now? Because from where I sit, education, access to wealth are all pretty big external ceilings.

And exactly what ceiling are you claiming I am trying to put in? None. I am saying that the upper income earners need to pay a bit more taxes, at least for now, for a lot of reasons. That is not a ceiling, it limits no one.

In all honesty, what is the philosophical difference between limiting blacks from owning property and limiting business people from making millions of dollars? You say that the limits on business people are justified, and racists would say that limits on minorities are justified.

STOP right there. No, I am NOT saying that "limits on business are justified". I am saying that it is justified to require businesses to PAY THEIR OWN WAY! Saying that if you dump out garbage, you have to make sure it won't poison my kids first is not "limiting business". It is protecting the rest of the world.

Saying that companies have to pay their decent workers (not talking trainees or slackers or even, necessarily disabled workers, etc .. though most disabled workers are able to pull their own weight if only given a change) enough that they won't end up dependent upon taxpayers.. be it welfare or Medicaid or any other government program, is saying that if you need work done, fine, but you cannot take a profit based on taxpayer subsidies and pretend you are taking a real profit.

Far too much of what winds up in the pockets of exectutives and stockholders today is not legitimate profit, its money they can withdraw because they can depend upon workers being subsidized by the government enough that they aren't "starving in the streets", etc.

Almost everybody would say that limits on minorities is an infringement of their rights, so why isn't that the same for the rich?

No one is infringing on the wealthy. That is the point. The wealthy are free to earn money, but it has to be true earnings.

If you work on a farm, the first thing you learn is take care of the animals first. They get fed, they get tended FIRST. Farmers know that their entire income depends upon the health and safety of those animals. Take care of them and they will take care of him.

It used to be that most companies operated about the same. Many small businesses still do. In the US, most owners of even small businesses make more than employees, though there are plenty of exceptions (especially starting out!). However, it is most definitely NOT the case for large businesses. Employees of many businesses, no matter what the "PR" material says, are really nothing more than machines. They are valued no more than the floor polisher or broom, and just as easily discarded. The result is a lot of things. Poor moral, poor productivity, demand for more wages to make up for poor conditions, etc. etc. Ultimately, the result is that decisions are made to ship jobs overseas because, basically "Americans are spoiled". That is, those in the US want enough to have a house, eat, have clothes, etc. Those in the less developed world are not so picky.

And, well... pretty soon, if this keeps up, we will be that group.

You say "no problem", why should anyone have to pay more? Because I want to live in the USA, in a country with a decent education system, decent roads, utilities and yep.. even healthcare. I don't want to live in Bangladesh or Somalia where only a few get to have those things. I want to work for it, I DON'T want it given to me, but I also don't want to be told that expecting those things just means I am greedy.. but that the owners feeling they have to have their BMW and Bermuda vacations are "just deserving".

ANY artificial or systematic limit on the abilities of the individual to achieve is inherently not free. To say that people should be limited by the government in how much they make leads to a socialistic government.

You are picking this out of your hat, not from what I said. No one is capping what anyone can earn.

In the case of graduated taxes, and mind you, we are not talking about huge graduations, a few percentage only, the concept is that if you take 10% of the income of someone making $5000, then you get $50. Take %10 of the income of someone making $5,000,000 and you get $50,000. Except, that $50,000 is not going to make a huge difference in how that milionaire lives, the decisions they make, what they can do. Double it and it still won't matter that much. It may "grate" and irritate, but it won't really and truly deprive that millionaire of anything. However, double the tax on the one making only $5000 and not only will you only get $100 (hardly worth the effort!), but that money is likely to mean a BIG difference in that person's life. It might mean the difference between eating every day or not, paying for electricity for one month or getting some new clothes for their child. Do the same for someone making $50,000 and while the difference might not be as great as for the one making only $5000, but it still matters a great deal in real, material ways.

There are other arguments, but a lot of them are esoteric or philisophical and right now, I just don't want to get into that.

Anyway, NO WHERE in any of that is there anything about "limiting" or "capping" the income of wealthy people. The problem is that wealthy people have not been paying for the costs they encure, not really.. AND right now, we are in some tough times, becuase past administrations (all of them.. back to Reagan) have refused to pay for expenses, have allowed costs to be pushed off until tommorrow. Well... "tommorrow" is here and we have to pay. Except, the economy right now is ALSO pretty bad, and bad not because all of us workers stopped working or decided we had to take too much in wages from employers. No, our economy is bad, largely because too many bigwigs decided to gamble with money that wasn't really theirs and then forced we taxpayers to bail them out when they lost.

Those same folks are the ones NOW "crying" that increasing taxes is "not fair". Well.. too bad. No, not everyone making millions or even a few hundred thousand made the gambles, took the risks. But, most did. Most people making over $250,000 have at least some stock/dividend/bond investments and many, many of those benefitted from the artificial booms of the past few years.

AND, this small increase in tax is not in any way going to deprive any of those people of making as much money as they wish. Now, some other rules.. like requiring that banks have more capitol on hand, etc.. those absolutely will impede some investments. But, that is because we taxpayers don't want to be left having to bail out the irresponsible banks again.

Asking, demanding that people be responsible, pay for the costs they encure and not expect the rest of the country to carry their personnal risk (but they alone get benefits), are absolutely reasonable.

People should only be limited by their personal abilities and willingness to work hard and take the occasional risk. Letting anybody decide on non-market-based salary caps is preposterous.

It would be, which is why that is not what anybody, least of all myself, is suggesting.

[BigBallinStalin]

The real point that matters is that most people making 250K can afford to pay a little more in taxes without it either cutting heavily into their food budgets, their kids schooling or other real necessities. The same is absolutely NOT true for the majority of us, most with incomes well below that.

My main contention with your reasoning is that the money taxed from them is spent by less efficient government programs. That money could've been spent at those people's discretion for whatever goods and services they valued as worth purchasing, which is a more efficient manner of boosting the economy.

Instead of taxing people within that bracket, the government needs to substantially reduce its spending--as we've seen with Obama's plan for withdrawal from Iraq and soon Afghanistan, and the sooner US troops leave there, the sooner the government can stop investing money into endeavors that aren't worth it.

The two have little to do with each other. The amount of money kept/saved by granting or not granting these taxes is not going to move any president to go or stay out of any war. I wish maybe it were that simple, but if there is an impact, it will be that money cut out will mean less funding for our solidiers already there.

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that the government doesn't need to tax the people more; instead, it needs to spend less, which is why I mentioned the withdrawal and (I hope) their return and thus the cut of war funds.

I wish we had not gone into any war, but once there... we better win. And, I sure don't want our soldiers getting stiffed.

I'm sure there's a lot of soldiers who wouldn't mind going home, so I find it hard to believe that they'd feel stiffed, but I can't speak for the majority of them.

But here is the thing. Its easy to point to government and say "its inefficient" or "money isn't going where I want". Its always true.. and always false. Government's job is not to make a profit. There IS no real profit in war (not in the direct sense ... and the indirect sense.. I just don't want to get into right now), In fact, most of the things a government does are things that are either just too central to everyone to be left in the hands of people looking for profit (and inherently therefore looking out for their self-interest), such as road systems, or that are just not profitable enough to interest for profit business (such as much long term research. Etc. IN other words, they are things that cannot be done well by private industry, not really. (sure, private roads exist.. on very popular routes. but depend on private entities to get a road to Ma parker's house up on the "second hill to the right", and .. she will be waiting a LONG time!).

Regarding infrastructure like roads, I agree. Regarding government-run businesses like healthcare or for the purposes of job-creation, I disagree, because those in top management aren't facing the same risks that entrepreneurs face. In public businesses the loss isn't felt on their wallets, but on everyone else's, so they're much less concerned about the risks they take, and the opportunities of benefit that they pass up. And even when a government program becomes inefficient, sometimes they're not even scrapped, so that removes the incentive for them to show better results. Compared to private business, that would be your ass--unless of course your "too big too fail."

The thing with inefficiency is that it creates waste. If an unproductive company employs people, it takes those people from the labor market and has them producing some good or service that could be produced more efficiently in a privately-run business. Government-run programs for many things are wasteful, but I agree that some projects should fall into their realm of control.

[Phatscotty]

omg how do you guys even take player seriously

[PLAYER57832]

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that the government doesn't need to tax the people more; instead, it needs to spend less, which is why I mentioned the withdrawal and (I hope) their return and thus the cut of war funds.

Its easy to say "cut wasteful spending". The problem is what you call waste, someone else considers valuable.

As for the war...there used to be a poster something to the effect of "I'd like to see the day when schools get all the money they need and generals have to have bake sales to buy thier tanks". It might be a nice thought over beer, but in the real world....

Cutting the budget is not going to end the war. It might get us to pull out, ala Vietnahm, perhaps, but the ultimate cost will then likely be even more. That's the problem. But... I will have to leave that line for now. Getting to tired to carry it further.

I wish we had not gone into any war, but once there... we better win. And, I sure don't want our soldiers getting stiffed.

I'm sure there's a lot of soldiers who wouldn't mind going home, so I find it hard to believe that they'd feel stiffed, but I can't speak for the majority of them.

Sending them home won't be "stiffing" them. Cutting the budgets for armour and supplies will be stiffiing them.. and that is what happens when army budgets get cut.

But here is the thing. Its easy to point to government and say "its inefficient" or "money isn't going where I want". Its always true.. and always false. Government's job is not to make a profit. There IS no real profit in war (not in the direct sense ... and the indirect sense.. I just don't want to get into right now), In fact, most of the things a government does are things that are either just too central to everyone to be left in the hands of people looking for profit (and inherently therefore looking out for their self-interest), such as road systems, or that are just not profitable enough to interest for profit business (such as much long term research. Etc. IN other words, they are things that cannot be done well by private industry, not really. (sure, private roads exist.. on very popular routes. but depend on private entities to get a road to Ma parker's house up on the "second hill to the right", and .. she will be waiting a LONG time!).

Regarding infrastructure like roads, I agree. Regarding government-run businesses like healthcare or for the purposes of job-creation, I disagree, because those in top management aren't facing the same risks that entrepreneurs face.

Apples and trumpets, again. I am going to set health care aside for now. Our system has nothing of sense in it and its debated in plenty of other threads. I will say that if you focus on the ground-level research, that is almost all done by the government, precisely because it is not (historically) immediately profiteable. However, things like going to the bottom of the ocean, the moon, vast amounts of geological and biological research.. all of that has provided much benefit, but is not the type of thing that is easily marketed for profit. You cannot compare those things to for profit business models because there is no easily identifiable end profit.

I will bring up one medical example, becuase its easy to see what I mean. Folks don't look for a cure for cancer because they think they will make a million dollars. Money may be earned, but often times not. The primary effort is about conquering the disease, saving peoples lives, etc.

In public businesses the loss isn't felt on their wallets, but on everyone else's, so they're much less concerned about the risks they take, and the opportunities of benefit that they pass up. And even when a government program becomes inefficient, sometimes they're not even scrapped, so that removes the incentive for them to show better results. Compared to private business, that would be your ass--unless of course your "too big too fail.'

As I said above, most government "business" is put in government specifically because it is not a profit item.
The exceptions are "trades" .. things like carpenters and such. However, those are not really government "businesses". It is a case of sometimes the government hires people directly becuase the location is too remote for regular business or security clearances are needed, etc. Or, sometimes becuase its just easier to have "in house" units. I mean, any large company has a maintenance unit and grounds unit. So, too, do most federal buildings and areas. But those wages are set by a formula called the "prevailing wage". Usually its tied to unions. It can mean people get paid a good deal more in government work, but you have to understand why that happened. Contrary to many assertions, it happened precisely so the government was at a disadvantage over private businesses. The idea was that if the government could lower wages for those people, then it would result in exploitation. The government was not supposed to negatively compete against unions, etc. So again, the government is less efficient in that area by design, not just becuase people don't know what they are doing or are wasteful. It was specifically set up that way.

This actually changed a lot under Bush. A LOT of jobs went to private contracts. And, there were many,many problems. Blackwater, etc. As much as I don't like soldiers over in Iraq, I liked far, far less the idea of private employees, not held to standards of the military, allowed to operate as essentially mercenaries (security gaurds, but basically mercenaries). That got a lot of press. Less attention was given to the other areas, things like the meal preparation units and such. The end result was that blackwater/ Haliburton made mega bucks off the US soldier and we wound up paying far more than we would have had the government just been allowed to hire direct, either direct civilian employees or military employees.

Same story, different dance in the case of the IRS... etc.

The thing with inefficiency is that it creates waste. If an unproductive company employs people, it takes those people from the labor market and has them producing some good or service that could be produced more efficiently in a privately-run business. Government-run programs for many things are wasteful, but I agree that some projects should fall into their realm of control.

There is waste in the government, and there is waste in any large agency. That is true. However, a lot of that is fixable and being fixed. New problems will always appear. The one thing about the government, though is that even if the government is large, its really a big group of a lot of smaller entities that each operate pretty independently.

Whether the government gets more or less is irrelevant to all that, though. It is irrelevant to whether the economy is driven more by the upper escheleons or the workers. Republicans, by and large believe in "trickle down".. give the top the benefits and they will get the economy going and make sure the workers have what they need. The Democrats are not much removed, but do pay a bit more attention to the idea of a bottom up economy.

[Woodruff]

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that the government doesn't need to tax the people more; instead, it needs to spend less, which is why I mentioned the withdrawal and (I hope) their return and thus the cut of war funds.

Due to the size of our budget, I am starting to believe that we're going to have to do both - raise taxes a bit (get that bastard paid down) and significantly cut our spending.

[john9blue]

Newsflash.. Woodruff is hardly a liberal!

None of us were talking about Woodruff though. I think some of his views are conservative actually. Not sure why you brought him up, to be honest...

[Woodruff]

Newsflash.. Woodruff is hardly a liberal!

None of us were talking about Woodruff though. I think some of his views are conservative actually. Not sure why you brought him up, to be honest...

Probably because I had said almost precisely the same thing as the individual that silvanricky claimed was making a strawman and to which you stated to BigBallinStalin that if it had been relating to a conservative, he wouldn't have defended it the way he did because it was relating to a relatively liberal individual (AAFitz). And I did it in the post directly preceding AAFitz'.

[john9blue]

Newsflash.. Woodruff is hardly a liberal!

None of us were talking about Woodruff though. I think some of his views are conservative actually. Not sure why you brought him up, to be honest...

Probably because I had said almost precisely the same thing as the individual that silvanricky claimed was making a strawman and to which you stated to BigBallinStalin that if it had been relating to a conservative, he wouldn't have defended it the way he did because it was relating to a relatively liberal individual (AAFitz). And I did it in the post directly preceding AAFitz'.

Oh lol. Yeah it's been a few days. But you can't just come in and say "FAIL LOL" and expect to be taken seriously, that's like the guy in the other thread who said Player whooped my ass in arguing something, and that was his whole post. I'm just a douche to people who post without substance.

[Night Strike]

ANY artificial or systematic limit on the abilities of the individual to achieve is inherently not free. To say that people should be limited by the government in how much they make leads to a socialistic government.

You are picking this out of your hat, not from what I said. No one is capping what anyone can earn.

That is EXACTLY what you said in your post. You clearly said that people should be able to make money, but only to a certain point. And it's not pidgeon-holing; it's a basic tenant of socialism.

[PLAYER57832]

ANY artificial or systematic limit on the abilities of the individual to achieve is inherently not free. To say that people should be limited by the government in how much they make leads to a socialistic government.

You are picking this out of your hat, not from what I said. No one is capping what anyone can earn.

That is EXACTLY what you said in your post. You clearly said that people should be able to make money, but only to a certain point. And it's not pidgeon-holing; it's a basic tenant of socialism.

Had you bothered to actually read instead of just picking out phrases you "knew you would see", you would have seen me clarify that to mean that businesses need to pay for their OWN expenses. It used to be OK for employers to just pay whatever they wanted and to demand whatever they wanted. It was called slavery.. that, and myriad of what we would now call horrific abuse. Thank heavans we have not found ourselves back there. None-the-less, this idea that anything is OK as long as it makes money is assinine.

There was NO CAP either stated or inferred. You just refuse to see anything but your own rhetoric.

You can lable any and all controls on business and profits to be "socialism" all you want, but if you look at reality instead of your labels, you will understand that even most ardent conservatives agree that some limits on business earnings, some restraints on how they are allowed to collect moneys, etc are warranted.

Instead of just labeling everything "socialist", try explaining why you think an idea is wrong. Trouble is, to do that, you have to actually understand the ideas you criticize.

[Night Strike]

ANY artificial or systematic limit on the abilities of the individual to achieve is inherently not free. To say that people should be limited by the government in how much they make leads to a socialistic government.

You are picking this out of your hat, not from what I said. No one is capping what anyone can earn.

That is EXACTLY what you said in your post. You clearly said that people should be able to make money, but only to a certain point. And it's not pidgeon-holing; it's a basic tenant of socialism.

Had you bothered to actually read instead of just picking out phrases you "knew you would see", you would have seen me clarify that to mean that businesses need to pay for their OWN expenses. It used to be OK for employers to just pay whatever they wanted and to demand whatever they wanted. It was called slavery.. that, and myriad of what we would now call horrific abuse. Thank heavans we have not found ourselves back there. None-the-less, this idea that anything is OK as long as it makes money is assinine.

There was NO CAP either stated or inferred. You just refuse to see anything but your own rhetoric.

Call it "socialist" all you want. Try explaining why its wrong, instead of just throwing out labels.

You said people could only make a certain amount of money. Even with the caveat that they pay their expenses (which they do), you still want to limit what they make.

[PLAYER57832]

You said people could only make a certain amount of money.

No, I definitely did not.
And, if you think I did,then exactly what dollar figure do you think I gave as the cap?
(hint..you won't find it, because I never gave one)

Even with the caveat that they pay their expenses (which they do), you still want to limit what they make.

I see, so according to you insisting that people test products before they sell them means we are "capping the money people can make?".

Saying that companies need to pay employees a certain amount does tend to cut into what they consider profits. However, I stand by the principle that its wrong to allow a company to claim to be "paying wages" when, in fact, they are really expecting taxpayers to pick up the tab for employee food, clothing and rent. If you are paying that little, you are not adding to the economy, you are draining it.. and no amount of taxes makes up for that.

That's just direct. Indirectly, businesses benefit from the taxes they pay in many ways that average people just don't. THAT is why the need to be taxed more. The rest of us cannot afford to keep subsidizing these wealthy businesses. And NOTE, I include most small businesses in that "cannot afford" bit! (with the caveat that there are scammers in every group).

[PLAYER57832]

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that the government doesn't need to tax the people more; instead, it needs to spend less, which is why I mentioned the withdrawal and (I hope) their return and thus the cut of war funds.

Due to the size of our budget, I am starting to believe that we're going to have to do both - raise taxes a bit (get that bastard paid down) and significantly cut our spending.

This has been true for quite some time.
Problem is, no one can seem to agree on WHERE to make the cuts, least of all the Republicans and Tea Partyers.

And as you know, just cutting funds for wars doesn't end them... at least not in any way we wish to repeat.

(we need to end the war so we can cut military spending, not cut spending in hopes it will end the war.. AND we need to be more sure we don't get into another stupid action).

[tzor]

omg how do you guys even take player seriously

Because she is a very serious person. Just because she views the word through the blinders of her political perspective does not mean she is any less serious. It does mean that any relation her notions has to the real world is purely an accident.

[tzor]

So do you really want to get into a discussion about the budget? Many people have tried to cut the budget. (They tried and failed? No they tried and died.) Ironically it may be easier than you think if you do not succumb to fear of cutting. (Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.) Behold the budget!
[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg[/bigimg]

Hmmmm; pie. So let’s look at the pie.
19.63% is that Ponzi scheme called social security.
18.74% is defence (like all those Army bands out there)
16.13% is unemployment, welfare, and so forth (a factor of the bad economy)
12.79% is Medicare
8.19% is Medicaid and SCHIP
4.63% is interest on the national debt

So let’s look at the P/L budget sheet for 2010

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2010 are $2.381 trillion, an estimated decrease of 11% from 2009.

• $1.061 trillion – Individual income taxes
• $940 billion – Social Security and other payroll tax
• $222 billion – Corporation income taxes
• $77 billion – Excise taxes
• $23 billion – Customs duties
• $20 billion – Estate and gift taxes
• $22 billion – Deposits of earnings
• $16 billion – Other

The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

• Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
  
  • $677.95 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
  • $571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
  • $453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
  • $290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
  • $164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
  • $11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
  • $0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
  • $0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts

• US receipt and expenditure estimates for fiscal year 2010.Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
  
  • $663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
  • $78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
  • $72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
  • $52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
  • $51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
  • $47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
  • $46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
  • $42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
  • $26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
  • $26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
  • $23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
  • $18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • $13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
  • $13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
  • $13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
  • $12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
  • $10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
  • $9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
  • $7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
  • $5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
  • $5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
  • $1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
  • $0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
  • $0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
  • $19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
  • $105 billion – Other

See … it’s easy. First eliminate that “Other.”

[PLAYER57832]

So do you really want to get into a discussion about the budget? Many people have tried to cut the budget. (They tried and failed? No they tried and died.) Ironically it may be easier than you think if you do not succumb to fear of cutting.

Everybody can come up with ideas as to how to cut the budget. As you said, that part is not too difficult. The hard part is getting other people to agree with your "vision".

Getting agreement and making it all work, THAT is what is difficult.

[tzor]

Getting agreement and making it all work, THAT is what is difficult.

Or one man with a baseball bat and a faithful dog. But first I need to make sure he gets elected governor.