E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDemocrats and Republicans agree: People with higher incomes must pay more.
Democrats want upper-income people to pay more in taxes, but don’t want upper-income people to pay more for their Medicare benefits.
Republicans want upper-income people to pay more for their Medicare benefits, but don’t want them to pay more in income taxes.
A House-Senate conference committee is looking to upper-income people as it tries to find the money to offset the cost of a payroll tax cut package, which includes extended unemployment benefits.
A compromise that combines a bit of each (higher income taxes on the rich and higher Medicare premiums) seems unlikely.
For the Democrats, Sen. Bob Casey, D- Pa. has proposed a surtax on the rich to help pay for the payroll tax cut package.
Last year Casey’s proposed 3.25 percent surtax on incomes over $1 million failed to get the 60 votes it needed to advance in the Senate. He has now lowered his threshold, calling for a 1 percent surtax on any income over $1 million, which he said would raise about $76 billion, offsetting almost half the cost of a payroll tax cut package.
“It’s a way to break some of the logjam we’re seeing here” on the conference committee, Casey said.
His surtax would affect roughly 250,000 out of more than 140 million total tax filers.
The bill which the conference committee is working on would keep the Social Security payroll tax at its lower 4.2 percent rate. It would also extend payments to the unemployed for another ten months, and prevent a scheduled 27 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.
Led by House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, Republicans want upper-income people to help pay for the package by paying higher premiums for their Medicare coverage.
Adopting the proposal President Obama made last September to the deficit reduction “super committee,” Republicans want higher premiums to apply to Medicare Part B, which pays for visits to the doctor’s office, and Medicare Part D, which pays for prescription drugs.
Under current law, people on Medicare who have annual incomes over $85,000 (or $170,000 for couples filing jointly) must pay higher premiums.
If you have income of $85,000 or less, your Medicare Part B premium is $99.90 a month; the premium increases as your income goes up; the highest premium is $319.70 a month. The median income for people over 65 is about $25,000.
About 5 percent of Medicare beneficiaries now pay the higher premiums. But under the Obama proposal, which Republicans have adopted, by 2019, 25 percent of Medicare recipients would pay higher premiums.
What’s maybe most significant is why the Democrats now oppose the idea of making upper-income people pay more for Medicare benefits.
One possible reason: they may not want to impose another burden on Medicare recipients, who are mostly over age 65 and who -- one must recall in an election year – have a high likelihood of voting. In the 2008 election, 70 percent of people over 65 voted, compared to only 49 percent of those 18 to 24.
Referring to the part of the package that would prevent that 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said at Tuesday’s meeting of the conference committee, “It doesn’t make much sense to pay doctors more, but (then) to take it out of the hide of beneficiaries.”
Baucus added, “I don’t know if the American people would think it was fair” to ask higher-income people to pay more for Medicare benefits.
Other Democrats on the committee see the GOP proposal as a dire threat to the future of Medicare itself.
“This will end Medicare as we know it,” said Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D- Pa.
Sen. Ben Cardin, D- Md. pointed out that workers who earn more money pay more in Medicare taxes, right up to the last dollar of income they earn. Unlike the Social Security payroll tax, which applies only to the first $110,000 of earned income, the Medicare payroll tax applies to all earned income.
“We ask those who make more money to pay more -- for the same benefits,” Cardin explained. “Medicare benefits are comparable for all seniors, but we ask those who... have higher income to contribute more” by paying higher Medicare taxes while they’re working.
Cardin also noted a Medicare tax increase that Democrats rarely mention: Obama’s 2010 health care overhaul imposes an additional 0.9 percent tax on higher-income people starting next year and another 3.8 percent on tax on their investment income.
So, Cardin argued, if you add all that up, higher-income Americans are already paying enough for their Medicare benefits.
Medicare Part B is voluntary and “the more that we put these types of payment structures in place, the more that people who are well off will choose to not enter the Medicare Part B system,” Cardin said.
“This is a slippery slope,” changing Medicare into a means-tested safety net program, he warned. “I think that it is a dangerous path for us to go down.”
“When higher-income people decide to opt out (of Medicare Part B), rather than paying so much of their Part B premium out of their own pockets, they’ll go elsewhere and buy some private insurance policy,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D- Calif.
“Those are the healthier, wealthier people. You’ll leave Medicare with the sicker, lower-income people and that means the whole Medicare system will increase in cost,” he said.
But Senate GOP Whip Jon Kyl rejected those arguments and, like Baucus, invoked “fairness” saying it “seems only fair that we ask some of the people at the very high end to be willing to pay a little bit more” for their Medicare benefits.
He said, “I thought we all agreed that high-income beneficiaries who are eligible for medical programs paid for by the taxpayers could afford to make some sacrifices here… in paying a little bit more for what they receive” from Medicare.
“This is not a new idea; this is something the president has proposed,” Kyl said. “I don’t know why all of a sudden people who want to put a surtax on millionaires don’t want them to have their Medicare benefit cuts at all.”
Leave a Comment:
How about splitting the difference? Isn't that what compromise is about? Nothing works well if its all this way or that way. These ultimatums are getting tiresome. I remember hearing someone in politics once say "A bill is truly fair if both sides dislike it but are still willing to accept it and take credit for it"
The wealthy and corporations should have their taxes lowered instead of raised since they are the ones who create all the jobs in this country. Wake up America!
Thats funny, because corporate tax rates are the lowest in history yet companies are slow to hire. Problem is, they make more money by investing their dividends overseas, then buying thier own stock back. The Boards of Directors make beaucoup bucks, but they haven't sold anything, increased production, or hired more people.
Hypothetical: If lowering corporate taxes is better, why not just eliminate them altogether? Explain this one, and I will wait for your (researched) response. Please cite your sources.
Because then the government would have no way of siphoning money out of the private sector to fund its own projects and programs.
We obviously need roads and cops and national defense, but take too much and you kill the goose which lays the golden eggs (be that goose a billionaire or just some guy making a salary and paying his income taxes).
Less is better to a point. After that, the infrastructure which the government is responsible for maintaining begins to crumble.
Or we can just let the corporations take a shot at keeping the nation running and secure... I wonder which is worse.
Hey Marlen...rich people don't create jobs just because you give them a tax cut...that is a lack of knowledge about how small business owners and wealthy people in general tick...but you keep carrying the water if you want, I promise to create more jobs if you cut my taxes more...scout's honor and all
Yeah, they created a whole bunch of jobs after Bush's two tax cuts didn't they?.....oh wait
marlen, you are so wrong, it is hard to know where to start.
80% of the jobs in this country are created by small businesses. The vast majority of the owners of those small businesses are not wealthy, but trying hard to get there. In case you have no concept of history, cutting taxes on the wealthy NEVER leads to job creation, but wealthier people. If it WERE true, we would have had every living, breathing organism in the US working by the end of Bush's term and the republicants would have to have a laser-like focus on "Jobs, jobs, jobs". Their idea of a laser must be different than mine.
Why don't the dems just quit giving money away and we can leave the tax structure as it is? This payroll tax cut is costing us more than the Bush tax cuts.
Call me crazy but this the payroll tax cut reduces revenues by $150 bilion. The Federal Budget is somewhere on the order of $3.8 trillion. $150 billion is about 4%. How about cutting every department in the government by 5% to make up that $150 billion. Considering the baseline budgeting they do, that is still an increase from 2011 spending of about 2%. I think that is the "fairest" and be done with it.
Romney already pays less than a lot of middle class Americans. 14 percent on 42 million dollars. I guess his superpac is creating lots of six figure jobs.
Fine.
Raise the income tax for the rich. Raise the capital gains tax for the rich. And eliminate the cap on Social Security and Medicare contributions by the rich.
If Mitt wants to move to communist China after that, let him.
JH...Where did you get that idea?
That's because the corporate tax rate has very little to do with hiring.
Companies hire (or not) because they think they can make a profit on the new employee's labor (or not). A few percentage points difference in the marginal tax rate on profits does not affect that calculation by enough to change the decision. No profit, no tax. And there's never a marginal rate as high as 100% of the profits.
FACT is - the US - second only to japan - has THE highest corperate tax rate in the world at 39.1%, japans is 39.5%
"Romney already pays less than a lot of middle class Americans. 14 percent on 42 million dollars."
Mitt Paid $5,880,000.00 That's almost 6 million in taxes. Please show me one middle class taxpayer who paid more in taxes.
John....As a percent of income. Hell the Newt pays a higher percentage of his income in taxes than does the Mitt.
"FACT is - the US - second only to japan - has THE highest corperate tax rate in the world at 39.1%, japans is 39.5%"
It's stupid to tax corporate profits; even the French are not as blind as to tax companies. Companies higher, Companies make things, you want to encourage companies to grow not discourage them. Companies move operations out of the US to get a 7% cost savings. Imagine the jobs they would create if we could give them an incentive of a 39.1% profit increase to bring those jobs back home.
I recall Nancy Pelosi saying she would punish companies that moved jobs out of the US. What a fool! You don’t punish a company you incent it. Whenever we try and punish companies we hurt ourselves.
Cut the Corporate Tax rate to 0, and leave capital gains at their post Bush levels and we will have a shortage of workers within 5 years.
As a percentage I pay less than the guy who cuts my grass. However I write a much larger check to the IRS than he does. Who pays more taxes? Answer I do. A progressive tax system is designed to allow different levels to pay at relative levels. The rich pay a lower percent of their income but they pay a @!$%# load more in real money. Stop trying to make it seem like they pay less than the middle class. They don’t, they pay way more than the middle class as they are supposed to.
John, please read up on the U.S. tax system. You have it completely ass backwards. A progressive system means that as you make more money, your tax PERCENTAGE burden goes UP. The problem with the U.S. tax system is we have so damn many loop holes and credits.
Making the rich pay their fair share of income taxes would be a great start. The rich don't need Medicare, so raising those rates would be nothing but political shenanigans. Also, Corporations are setting on record cash piles and have not stepped up to the plate on the hiring front. The Government can not make companies hire -- Companies will hire when they see it as a profitable move, period. Lowering their taxes in exchange for them hiring would be nothing but another tax payer sponsored welfare program.
I'm all for having the rich pay more, but I think it should be when they're earning money, not during retirement. Same for the rest of us. Stop this stupid payroll tax cut; let the Bush tax cuts expire. We need to raise revenue, not keep finding ways to reduce it, but it needs to be from those who have it and can make more, not seniors on a fixed income.
John, Companies want to make money. It's that simple. They don't hire if it will hurt profits, they fire if it will help profits. The Founding Fathers recognized that all men act in their own self-interest. Just can't understand why any of you don't get that.
Someone has been watching too much Fox News! If the wealthy and corporations are the "job creators" (a phrase used ad nauseum by Boehner, Cantor, et al), and corporate taxes are historically low, then where are all the freaking jobs???
I expect your next post to be insisting on complete deregulation of those corporations...
dbellis
How about we do something novel, like tax EVERYONE EQUALLY. We are supposed to be a country where all Men are created equally, that should apply to taxation as well.
Get rid of all the tax code for personal income taxes, that means all deductions, credits, all of it. Also, get rid of all other federal taxes to include excise, payroll, and fees attached at the federal level with the exception of import/export levies.
Lastly, give every working person a single deduction of $15,050, ($7.25 x 40hrs x 52 weeks), and then tax all monies earned or unearned at 17-20%.
Job creators? LMAO... I'm more of a job creator than the wealthy - I spend every penny, generating jobs for grocery store clerks, bank tellers, hair dressers, restaurant staff, plumbers and electricians, taxi drivers, travel agents, etc. Meanwhile, Mittens and his cronies make jobs for Cayman Island bankers.
I think it would be fair to make everyone pay something...or at least not get more back at tax time than you paid in...One man I work with...married with two kids paid in $852 all year in taxes and is getting back just short of $10,000 on his taxes...and then I get to listen to him complain about the rich not paying their fair share...Sorry to all of you but YOU need to pay your fair share...or at least stop robbing the tax system and get back no more than you put in ever...THEN maybe I will take your talking points a little more serious...until then your all just jealous that you made bad choices in life and can't do as well as others.
AG99 - How about we NOT raise revenues and reduce expenses instead? You know, like every household and organization OTHER than the federal government does when faced with financial difficulties. The federal budget has ballooned over the last decade. It's totally unsustainable. We cannot raise revenues fast enough nor high enough to feed this bloated pig we call our federal government. It's a national disgrace to be in this situation. The train is rapidly coming off the tracks.
To many columns and rows. If employers paid more than consumers would spend more driving prices down and creating more opportunities for off shore sales not to mention more opportunities for new and growing industries.
can we quit the stupid liberal conservative BS already?
The people spending is what sustains this economy. squeezing rocks for water?
dslodge
I have two friends in the same boat. The first is a single (divorced) woman that makes close to $55,000, has two children and owns her own home. She pays $0.00 in taxes The second is a married man who makes just over $63,000, he has 4 children, wife is a stay at home mom and own their own home. Once again, pays $0.00 in taxes.
I am sorry but people making that much money should be paying taxes.
John,
Most big companies already pay 0 in taxes... thanks to lobbyists, write-offs, and good accountants.
Yet they STILL move jobs over-seas. Why? Because they don't care about the tax rate when they can pay a nickle per hour of work, get 12 hours per day from the workers, and the employees commit suicide before striking. It's an employers dream.
Common, John et al,
John I am not sure if you realize that effective rates are a lot more significant than statuatory rates. US effective corporate tax rates are around 23% right in the middle of the rate tables. It is another false flag argument to keep rates as low as possible for the wealthy. Low corporate rates for home grown job creating investment makes a great deal of sense. Low rates for corporations importing goods to compete in American markets. For the last 25 yrs very deceptive "Right to Work" laws have been deadly to existing American industries by bringing in foreign industry using tax payer dollars to build infrastructure train labor and give tax abatements to foreign investors through American shells as well as straight up foreign corporations. American companies would be viewed as getting a bailout or unfair advantage these are the things that should be done and are not.
Common sense raising taxes and especially a higher and more limited capital gains rate has ALWAYS led to increased at home investment. When profits made in the market can be realized at 15% (see Mitt Romney) and losses written off against gains ad infinitum it encourages profit taking and market inflation. When a penalty is paid for profit taking long term capital investments have always been the order of the day. Trickle down is ruinous we need to return to Clinton era rates eventually moving the top 3 brackets up at 1% per year or every other with a cap established wherever the GAO suggests.
I am retired for a variety of reasons at age fifty five and owned my own business for 25 yrs and tax rates had damn little to do with whether I was successful only in how much less I would make. The rise in health and liability insurance had a hell of a lot more to do with managing cost and providing a reasonable and liveable pay structure for my employees. My question for folks on the right is when does increasing ones wealth become greed, certainly there must be some point at which this occurs. Greed is the second Deadly Sin but it seems to be a point of honor with the Reagan worshipping crowd.
jkh
Is everyone blue in the face yet, come on people We have passed the point of NO return but people just don't get it, there comes a time when NO matter how hard you try to fix something it just can't be done, We have a bunch of really stupid people working within our government that have no clue as to how to fix the problem. To many people are sucking off the tit of our government for one thing and giving tax breaks and deduction are a joke, that's like the companies giving bonuses for a company losing money, now does that make any sense at all.
Wizard and dslodge - so, perhaps the problem is that the middle class are not paying their fair share.
These are anectodal examples that are most likely not accurate. Did you personally see their income tax filings and other documents? They most likely paid income taxes to some degree, not to mention SS taxes, state income taxes and so forth. But, this does demonstrate that most of your middle income families are paying relatively little in taxes.
Again, we don't have a revenue problem. We have an expense problem. And, the hacks in DC will never cut expenses.
The Bush tax cuts were never paid for anymore then the payroll tax cut from Obama. In the end it seems no one pays for anything in Washington. They just point fingers at each other and complain the borrowed money isn't being spent in the right places. Washington is a joke, and for anyone to defend any of their actions is pretty pathetic. All they can do is create more problems for this once great nation, but they never ever solve anything.
It is called: REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
Leave it to Congressional members: can't live within your means (Federal Income) = spending problem = tax SOMEONE.
Meanwhile, Congressman Joe and Congresswoman Jill asked: "Where is that paperwork for me to include my PORK in this legislation ?"
WakeUpAmerica,
Actually yes he did show me his check stub because I did not believe him when he told me how little he payed in...That did not include ss but still...you have no right at that point to complain about what others pay...but no I did not see his actual tax return I just get to listen to him rant about it on a daily basis about how he is spending it.
Jim Hayes-
what is your definition of greed? and what gives other Americans have a right to determine how much is enough for any other person?
Let's just do this..the JOB CREATORS (the rich...according to repubs) start creating jobs or we make them pay more taxes...they have all the money
WakeUpAmerica-3716462
Yes I did see both of their tax returns, and in the case of the female I also saw the $1200 refund check she recieved that exceeded the amount of tax witholdings.
What it really does show is how screwed up the Tax Code is. Why is it that both these examples get more money back than they paid in witholding when someone like myself who is single and rents and makes around $80,000 pays 25% in taxes.
I know that someone on this vine will just say that I am mad about paying what I do for taxes, and you would be wrong. What I am pissed about is how the current tax code picks winners and losers by the way of deductions and credits. One should not get huge deductions just because you have had children or decided to purchase a house.
Wizard - exactly. All this banter about who's paying their fair share is nonsense. Depending on how you define "fair" the higher income taxpayers are the only ones paying their fair share - and most everyone elses' too. I'm rounding the numbers here, but assume the federal budget is $3 trillion. Total US population is 300 million. That's $10,000 for every man, woman and child in the US to fund our government. Teh average family of four's tax liability to pay their "fair" share would be $40,000. Only the top 5% or less are paying that much. So, most people are getting a free, or heavily subsidized ride. And these people are the first to start ranting about the rich not paying their fair share. I think that most higher income people willingly accept that they will pay a disproportionate amount of the tax load. I think what upsets them is when politicians (i.e. Obama) start attacking the so-called rich. And, many of the high income taxpayers are not necessarily "rich" - they just make a lot of money. There is a difference between wealth and income.
So, let's stop all the anger against one-another and direct it where it belongs - Washington. Clean these jackasses out and start over. Keep doing that until someone gets the message.
The problem with all of you who are complaining about "business owners" not hiring drives me CRAZY! It isn't tax cuts or increases and in many instances insurance don't draw too much water either.
It is VERY simple: We have outsourced the manufacturing of all of our "every day goods" so there is no demand for their products. As long as a business owner can see "a" profit they will do everything in their power to meet the demand as long as it doesn't look like an "abnormal spike". They may hire fewer if the projected profit is smaller and make those they do hire work harder but they WILL hire.
That seems to be the Democrat's answer to everything haha. After they get done with them, they can get to soaking the middle class. I look forward to many more hidden taxes in our gasoline, food, and luxury items as well!
WakeUpAmerica-3716462
First of all there are about 151 million working Americans and they earned aprox $7.75 trillion dollars. That equates to about $52,000 per working american. The budget is about $3 trillion or about $20,000 per working american, or 38.5% of their income.
So to balance the Federal Budget we all would have to give up 38.5% of our income BEFORE any kind of deductions, so yes I know the problem and it is NOT revenue.
Let's call things what they really are:
Payroll tax is Social Security with holding. Don't pay it grow old dirt butt poor!
Romney's income is mostly dividends, the fruits of his investments that were previously taxed and the earnings were taxed again before being distributed as dividends. Triple taxation!
Want to have that problem? Do some investing.
I say we should reduce spending by laying off half the government workers, no need to pay their salary, medical benefits less money spent on health care, no 5 weeks a year vacations, and the last but not least their RETIREMENT funds
Why shouldn't you be mad at paying taxes? Taxes are a fee collected to pay for something else. This something else your being charged is for Government workers to collect better healthcare, better pay and better working conditions. Personally, I think ALL government workers should make the federal Minimum wage, and the same healthcare plan I have, NONE.
From what i understand Companies are now sitting on a surplus of products that are not moving. They called Stagnation a Great Depression so what will they call whats next?
Fire Congress so these ""Liberals and ""Conservatives can go home and argue about contraceptives.
Is all we have left is Rich and Poor? If you don't fit either that means your a gullible worker so shut up be thankful and get your ass back to work.
FEEED MEEE!
Those gov't workers will now be on the unemployed list bread lines on the corners selling apples
Larry Robinson,
If I had to I would stick with Catholic Social Teaching on greed / avarice. It is something like this: If you are acquiring wealth for the simple desire to have more beyond all need it becomes a love of acquisition and not one of need. I have always felt that Reagan Geccoed America telling us from the top that "Greed is Good". Prior to Reagan pretty much all Americans believed in alleviating poverty and providing opportunity for all and that a persons value need not be determined by their proficiency at making money. Reagan taught America not to despise poverty but to despise the poor whom he believed were responsible for their own plight.
I would suggest if that anyone who has enough money so that they could retire tomorrow spend a thousand dollars a day leave their children provided for and continues to continue accruing wealth for the sake of just having more are just greedy. If you have homes that you neither rent nor live in just because you wanted a house somewhere that would be greed. If you own a private jet without need you are probably greedy. Greed and Gluttony are closely related and things like eating or acquiring wealth go from being a necessity to good life well spent to excess and greed.
jkh
Jim Hayes,
I agree with your 1.48 post but I think you have conveniently left out the poor who don't because its given.
I am not prejudice but I am a white male poverty isn't something I can claim for benefit. pun so intended and god bless my brothers and sisters from people with other nationalities and pigmently challenged skin colors. lmfao!
I think they have forgotten the = sign. left and right means nothing with out the equal sign. how little credit that = sign gets.
Only if America was about Equality.
The administration is obsessed with raising taxes on the rich. They are attaching it to everything that they propose.
I do not understandthe the social security tax problem. If one pays less social security so does your employer on your behalf. The smaller amount of social security taxes that are paid into your account over the years, the lower will be the benefits that you receive when you are old enough to receive benefits. I think that the government should allow people to opt our of the system because, as far as the government is concerned, it is a losing proposition.
I want to understant the big picture. The President promised, without conditions of any kind, that the 2012 federal budget will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars. I want the President to explain how his Promise to the American people is going to be kept.
Liberals say conservatives are idiots
Conservatives say liberals are idiots
I agree with both of them :)~
I'm going bonkers over taxes and I'm just a ,Oh well a little guy shouldn't be taxed thrice..
Tax and Spend. Why are we not surprised by the latest proposals.
How about Tax & Cut - maybe then we can reverse the ridiculous increases in the Debt.
how about retariff manufactured goods and make hiring americans more profitable then outsourcing
Old Fat Guy-Then why was Romney's effective tax rate 14%???? Wouldn't his tax papers reflect that???
Wake Up America-Yes, America has a spending problem. We spend far too much money. But we shouldn't focus the cuts on social services, which account for a smaller portion of the budget. We ought to focus on reforming (not privatizing) entitlements so they will be solvent for an indefinite amount of time and reducing our defense spending from about 7% of GDP (or about $1 trillion a year) to perhaps 5.2% (about $714 billion).
But America also has a revenue problem. As you can see, revenues are at an all-time low at about 15%. We need to raise revenues in order to balance the budget (doing one is idiotic). If you want a plan to reduce the deficit, I have one for you:
I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.
II. Economic Recovery Package
well..who else can pay...if you have no money thanks to the 1%...you have no money...who else will fix these problems...the rich need to watch their backs...OWS might just occupy your house and worse...take your life
I hope it won't come too that...I own my house...I prepared long ago
Sorry if I was Right..by the way...I have guns...I live in Texas...sorry for all the people that could not or will not accept reality
John-362791, I truly understand how you arrived at such a conclusion. I also strongly disagree with you. All taxes are a burden. A necessary sacrifice.
A healthy society or nation demands a strong military, a stable and up-to- date infrastructure, a healthy and well educated work-force to maintain and constantly improve all of the above in order to remain competitive with other nations of the world. These are all essential matters for prosperity and national survival that greatly benefit each and every one of us.
We must fairly share those costs. Like it or not, such a system of government must be socialistic to maintain an efficient government body to administer all of these needs. All of the governments of the free world are socialistic by necessity.
Those that insist on much smaller government (or no government) are seriously mislead (they are the same people that spit out the word "socialism" as something vile or evil). Instead, we must insist on the most efficient and lean government that provides an equal or better level of services to the people.
Our economic system has had great success with capitalism. It provides strong incentives to work hard and smart to provide the greatest financial rewards. Capitalism is a mighty force that made us the greatest country on Earth in our time.
Unrestrained capitalism has caused many serious problems in the past. Wealthy entrepreneurs built mighty railroads from the Atlantic to Pacific Oceans across this great land. They also forced many hardy American pioneers from their hard-earned land,homes and farms by pressuring banks to use early and unfair foreclosures to gain right-of-way.
They later used the same leverage to take the homes and land of innocent people in the pursuit of riches in oil fields. They also murdered thousands of children of the poor by forcing them to work long hours in extremely hazardous plants and warehouses. This is all a simple matter of well documented American history.
Our representative and socialist government stepped in with regulations on capitalism to prevent such flagrant abuse.The industrial age was tamed and the prosperity of the "Roaring Twenties" soon followed. Socialistic government and a carefully regulated capitalistic economic system proved to be a winning combination.
Please remember that taxes are always a necessary burden and sacrifice to the American people. It can never to be allocated by a particular dollar amount, but the degree of burden and sacrifice on the individual, business or corporation. That is why a progressive tax system is the only fair form of taxation.
The problem with the Republican proposal is that it really doesn't necessarily increase the revenue stream. If the wealthy choose to opt out of the optional programs, in reality, it just increase the cost of those programs. That may not seem obvious on the surface, but on the whole, the wealthier are healthier. Now if you were to make Medicare deductions for the working wealthy on a progressive scale, that would potentially work. And that could be used as more of a long term fix for Medicare funding issues. The current payroll tax cuts should really only be considered as a short term stimulus approach anyway, so a short term tax surcharge on the wealthiest taxpayers really makes the most sense.
The payroll tax cuts are valuable and stimulative because virtually every dollar of that goes back into the economy. The same goes for the unemployment benefits. As more people return to work, both of these needs decrease and should eventually no longer be needed. In reality, this is sort of a closed loop incremental help to the economy that works gradually over time. It produces a gradually increasing consumer spending. That will be more effective in the long run.
Now I don't think anybody will argue that the whole tax system isn't in need of a revamp, but that simply won't happen over night. We will have to get a lot closer to a fair system bit by bit and when it is closer, then a revamp will be easier to get through.
I guess that I think some combination of surcharge taxes and more funding of Medicare, both coming from the wealthier and successful people in the country makes the most sense, but the Medicare piece needs to be looked at carefully to assure that it will actually achieve the added revenue. I don't believe the current Republican proposals really do that.
We can't even get them to pay their own effin taxes, how ya' gonna get them to pay anybody else's?
"We can't even get them to pay their own effin taxes, how ya' gonna get them to pay anybody else's?"
You must be talking about Dem Charlie Rangel and Dem Timothy Geitner!
Corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, and millionare taxes are not the reason we have no jobs in this country. Raise, them, it won't cause us to lose jobs, and it will create new revenues.
Nor can we say in such a simple manner that, "Our corporate taxes are the highest in the world." It's not that simple, we have so many loopholes, what the actual corporate tax rate is, is basically a moot point.
If you want to create jobs, we need to focus on TRADE. Multinational corporations, who are in bed with our politicians, have no reason to invest in the U.S. Why not use Chinese manufacturing, where they can violate every human rights law known to man. They buy off our politicians, through lobbys, campaign donations, and lucrative private sector jobs, in order to insure that this continues.
Couple that with the fact that the banks make more money dolling out debt and betting on it, than they do actually investing in innovation and manufacturing, and you have our bunk system that's led to no jobs.
It isn't about more taxes or less taxes, it's about smart taxes and aligning the interests of banks, manufacturers, innovators, and laborers.
Thank you Commonsense, Newday, and Sarah. You have been showing the point that is the truth.
Detroit-Storm which companies pay themselves dividends and invest those dividends over seas? Dividends are paid to stock holders. Companies don't pay themselves dividends. Companies pay dividends to the holders of the stocks who then have to pay taxes to the U.S. government.
The Democrats should go w/ the Republican idea of a tax increase to be used for Medicare "Trust Fund" and then steal the money to pay for the national debt and their excessive spending -- that's what they have been doing all along !!! The reduction in the "wage tax" is actually a reduction in what used to be called the Social Security Tax. Its a way to "simulate" the economy by giving people more money to spend but not telling them that the Democrats are really stealing it from social Security -- enough of this @!$%#.
How about getting the Fat Kat some nice juicy tax breaks if and ONLY if they hire people and help reduce the federal dole rolls.
I'm all for that. You can be called a "job creator" after you have created actual jobs (in America).
If you want American companies to hire more Americans, then only buy products made in America.
The problem isn't just the companies, the problem is also the American consumer. If a company "does the right thing" and pays the higher wages and addition regulatory costs of operating in this country, their products will no longer be price competitive and they will likely go out of business - then those few that have jobs now will also be out of work.
Telling companies to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world is not a reasonable approach. Instead, we need to look at trade agreements, regulations, etc. to find ways to make doing business in America profitable again.
The production of Apple products cheaply in China is from using the equivalent of slave labor. Of course America cannot compete with Chinese slave labor. The more fool Americans buying the products of slave labor. Trade sanctions against unfair labor practices seem only reasonable against companies.
Companies are not hiring because the Democrats in Congress will not pass a budget. It has been over a thousand days since a budget was passed.
Companies are not going to invest if they don't know what their cost are going to be it is just simple business sense!
And docked for jobs you send overseas!
Bring the manufacturing bases back (shoes, toys, clothes, furniture, computers, etc.) and we're on the road to recovery. Even if those jobs pay $12.00/hour, not only are those income taxes pumped back into our country, but those dollars are used to purchase goods made here in the USA thus begins the loop. I always hear, "Buy American", but if you pick up any tangible good, it has primarily "Made in China" stamped on the under side. The outsourcing of jobs that has happened in this country seems to border on economic treason. And just because it isn't against the law doesn't make it right. If I were to call my mother a *%$#@. It would still be legal, but it simply isn't the right thing to do. The problem is we have a good deal of the people in the current administration that were there during the Bush administration who were responsible for getting us in this mess. The fox is guarding the hen house is the root of our economic woes.
Over the next 20 years I believe many jobs will be coming back. Better quality goods are produced here and companies are tired of the Chinese stealing their ideas, know how and technology, putting the American companies in China out of business. The Chinese government subsidizes Chinese companies that steal our ideas and then undercut us.
Transporting goods from China to here is also very expensive. Labor costs in China are escalating as the government see's that the widening gap between rich and poor may bring on a new revolution.
Individuals don't create jobs, companies do. Reduce the corporate tax rate and see if hiring increases.
WRONG. Indidividuals DO create jobs. They INDIVIDUALLY go to the store/mall/car lot to BUY THINGS which increases demand which creates JOBs.
Corporate tax rates are already historically LOW. They are not hiring because they make more money investing in the stock market as opposed to hiring people.
Devdoc12able, that argument is patently ridiculous. A company doesn't need staff and then decide not to hire because 'congress hasn't passed a budget'. If you need staff, you hire them. If you think you can squeeze your existing work force, then you don't. Congress and it's budget talks have nothing to do with it. Also recall that the Republicans control the house, not the Dems. The same rules apply to both.
Claims that lowering taxes on the rich will create jobs is laughable. We tried that for 12 years and the economy started cratering immediately. The rich don't create jobs, a lively economy does. A lively economy is created by the poor and middle class, NOT the rich. The rich invest in stocks and bonds and invest over seas. The rich have a secondary effect that they meet the need to hire employees and inject funds into the economy, but that base need is created by the poor and the middle class. Without someone to buy your goods, a business will fold in short order. No amount of tax breaks can make a business profitable unless their operating costs are less than their taxes and that is pretty much an impossiblity. Middle class folks who purchase goods and services drive the need for business.
This is a basic rule of economics. Demand drives an economy, not 'business'. Demand comes from the buying public, meaning the poor and the middle class. The rich may buy a house, a yacht, etc, but those are blips compared to the spending and demand of the 99 percent.
.
That's what I keep saying. Boost consumer spending by doubling the minimum wage. Increase tax revenues and stop wasting time with temporary tax cuts, let them all expire. Put some cash in the pockets of people who don't already own everything and they will become job creators, because the boost in consumption will force new hiring.
Always good to see the marxists identify themselves
Bush tried that and nothing happened ...nothing good happened as you can see
T.R. Hendricks, your idea is interesting. However, bear in mind that even as the law stands right now, when you hire someone you already get a tax-break because paying the new employee's wage is generally going to be a valid business expense which is deductible. What is more, it is corporations, not individuals, who do the really big hiring, and they already pay a double-tax, first on the corporate income itself, and then the income is taxed again by the recipients of stockholder dividends. Just how much is enough, T.R.? Finally, the law you propose, or at least the law I think you are proposing, would be very difficult to write in any manner that would both be effective and pass constitutional muster. Fortunately, our laws are not yet written and passed by the likes of Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, or "villagers with pitchforks" such as yourself. The good news for you, is that you are in very distinguished company.
If reduce tax cut for the rich works, we would see the effects in the last 8 years.
The problem is corporations are all for profit, they wouldn't create jobs here since it would cost more to pay and less profits, so they will end up creating jobs oversea regardless of tax rate.
Another misconception are the rich are job creators, WRONG. Small businesses created most jobs in the US, you take out middle class or small business, you see the effect we are having now.
Vine Moderator ----- Comments # 1.1 , 1.13 , 1.14 and 2.4 , above , violate no Newsvine rule and yet you censor them by collapsing them. Why? Why do you refuse to allow legitimate comments to stand?
Ron-186... - some companies are bringing jobs back to America despite low overseas labor costs. The reason is American productivity. IE it takes an American worker and a machine to produce a product here in the US at a comparable cost than it takes several low cost foreign workers + transportation costs. The caveat is that the number of American workers hired will still be less than the number overseas.
As overseas wages increase and we increase or maintain productivity the balance can once again shift jobs back to America. However if they also increase productivity we again lose the competitive edge. Another aspect is that many oversea consumers want to buy "made in the USA" products, which will aid US manufacturing.
Another fly in the ointment relates to market shifts away from American consumers to countries with an expanding market. Think china and india for starters where local manufacturing centers can be more profitable than here based on volume.
The bottom line is that in a global economy, old rules/methods no longer may apply.
Hey Larry; stop calling people Marxists. It just makes you sound ignorant. We're not in the Red Scare. We're in the RIGHT Scare, where Americans are afraid that the GOP will destroy America.
P.S. I'll bet that you don't even know what Marxists ACTUALLY believe in. If you do, you'd know that I'm not a Marxist. Nor is any liberal or left-leaning commentator.
freshieee,
You can keep denying it all you want but the facts are the facts and you certainly are not unique in denying the connection to marxist socialism that is the core of Democratic liberal belief.
1. the Democratic party platform has mirrored the Communist Manifesto for nearly 100 years
2. Liberals enthusiastically support that platform
3. The members of the Progressive Caucus are also members of the Democratic Socialists USA party
4. Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate as a candidate of the Socialist New Party created by the Democratic Socialists USA party
5. Barack Obama has been endorsed by the Communist Party USA in both 2008 and again for the 2012 election. Why do you think they would do that?
I've read and re-read the Manifesto, Critique of the Gotha Programme, his 1844 “Critical Notes on the Article ‘The King of Prussia and Social Reform,’” his 1874 “Notes on Bakunin’s Book Statehood and Anarchy,” in “The Second Draft, Writings on the Paris Commune”, I've bought my copy of Mao's "Little Red Book" in 1966. I've been to both Cuba and China
In Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx stated what has become the political strategy of today's left:
the following summary of modern socialist thought also mirrors current Democratic liberal ideology
Daniel Bell, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, p. xii
Bell captures what the Socialist International itself says is the evolution of socialism
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31
Need a job? Ask someone living pay check to pay check for one. Hard working American citizens don't need a tax rebate, they need a country full of responsible people. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Too many looking for handouts, hurting the whole country. Shameful, but the so called "Progressive" way!
Give a man an unemployment check and he spends all of it. Give a rich man a tax break and he saves all of it.
I am not sure who you think are looking for handouts. I have been unemployed a couple of times, and it was never anything I grew accustomed to or depended on. The reason people are out of work is lack of jobs, due to increases in worker productivity without the requisite increases in wages for that productivity. Even Henry Ford knew enough to pay his workers enough to buy his products. That concept have been lost, with companies deciding to stagnate wages for the last 40 years, killing off the middle class and consumer demand. If we want to get people working again, increased consumer demand is the only solution, and the only way to get that is for the companies with trillions of dollars sitting in bank accounts to pay that to their existing employees so they can spend it and create the demand, leading to more hiring.
@John Mack, good post. I was thinking along the same lines but could not articulate it.
The growing disparity between income classes is continuing to reduce demand, the basis of an economy. As John stated above, if a rich person gets a few million extra it doesn't create demand as the money is simply saved. A poor or middle class person with an extra thousand or two spends it thereby creating demand. Unfortunately there is no way to mandate how a company distributes it's profits, but if there were our problems would be solved.
The reason people are unemployed so long is because of unemployment checks...two people I know drew them claiming they could not find a job but yet when they were finally cut off it was amazing they had jobs within a month...Guess God was watching over them...huh.
Find your way, work at anything, anywhere. Have pride in yourself and refuse charity (handouts), unless your physically or mentally incapable. Lack of pride, lack of effort, lack of self respect. Hurt your feelings? Too bad!
Want to give EVERYONE in the USA a TAX FREE pay raise?
President Obama makes an announcement to the WORLD that the USA will be ENERGY INDEPENDENT IN 3-5 YEARS. The price of energy would go down immediately around the world and when we are energy independent we should be buying OUR OIL (gas, etc) at somewhere South of $30/Barrel instead of $90-100/Barrel.
Our INEPT Government thinks it is THEIR oil but it isn't. It is OUR oil. We are sitting on 100+ years supply of Oil and Natural Gas. Yes, we need to find alternative sources but we don't have to do it TODAY. If we can't come up with an alternative in 50 YEARS then we probably don't deserve to survive as a species anyway!
The best way to make money is to have investments and live off of the dividends and interest. You pay less than those working jobs and have time to enjoy life or run for public office. As long as 99% of the people work like slaves and pay more than you in taxes everything is fine. America the beautiful. I hope the stock market keeps going up. Money for doing nothing,life is good.
Everyone will need to pay to relieve the burden the government has placed on the people of this country
Everyone! Hell the only ones with enough money left to pay ANYTHING is the wealthy....the controlers of all.
The payroll tax cut is a bad idea to begin with. Temporary tax cuts have a way of becoming permanent. Payroll taxes are used to fund SS benefits and we need to stop messing with the SS System. We need to ensure that SS NEVER becomes an entitlement program and is fully funded ONLY by the payroll taxes of those who will later collect retirement benefits.
Pete, libs want to do away with paying SS & Medicare except to their base.
Common Man, that is so retarded you had to overhear that on Faux News.
It isn't even logical.
Peter, SS benefits are not funded by one's contributions during their working years. The only think Rich Parry ever came close to getting right is that it is basically a Ponzi scheme. Also, what is your definition of an entitlement program, if SS is not one? LOL!!
John, that's why we need SS accounts privatized. Being self employed I payed double SS for years and expect the government to have my money there for me. That's my money not your money chumpers.
I'd like to opt out of SS entirely and get a refund of what I've had taken so far during my career.
I am saving for myself right now because I know in 25 years it will be gone. Give it back to me and let me determine my own future; I'll be just fine and don't want to be a burden on future taxpayers.
Hasn't it been shown that by the time you retire you get back, in SS, all that was taken from your checks within the first 3-5 years and after that.. it comes from other people's current contributions?
How will that work when incomes have been flat or sinking for so many? Less tax base!
Sounds like a Ponzi scheme of sorts to me. Glad my parents are getting it but I don't have any hope for those 40 or under.
Pete one thing they could do is take all public sector pension funds and put that money into SS. When public employees become eligible for SS they can take their pension as SS just like the private sector.
Common Man: Public employees pay Social Security taxes just like everyone else. Their pension funds are set up just like everyone else's, also, and are dependent on how their state, city, county, or whatever government entity funded those pensions.
It was a bad idea because of where it came from. Most of you complained when the Republicans were talking against the payroll tax cut and rescinding it. If there was a tax cut, it should be an income tax cut and not a payroll tax cut. Why? Because the payroll tax cut takes out of Social Security fund. Which means that a system that is already paying out more than taking in and a system that is projected to go bankrupt in 2036. And that was before we took billions of dollars more out of it. If this was not so pathetic, it would be sad. You cried for your payroll tax and sided with the democrats. What is going to happen when you retire and the democrats tell you that there is no money in the SSI fund to pay for your retirement? Watch and see. They will then blame it on the Republicans. The total blame lies on the democrats for this payroll tax cut, for scaring senior citizens, for pushing granny off the cliff. Val, not entirely true. Employees hired before 1984 do not pay in to the SShttp://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.htmlI. Maybe not a lot of them, but it is true.
@Common Man,
I guess you haven't read the recent report about the Red (Republican majority) States are using more welfare than the Blue States. How do you explain this?
I can explain it. Republicans are the anti-intellectual party. They are all a bunch of parasitic bible thumping welfare queens. They live off of welfare and federal money from churches.Then they sit around and bash people on regular welfare. Republicans make sure money keeps going to churches in order to buy the religious vote. Mitt Romney is the biggest parasitic welfare queen of them all. He doesn't make anything but deals that hurt American workers.
Liberals are innovative and progressive. They invent things like Facebook and Ipods. Liberals are better educated and I'm not talking about a religious school that passes everyone. I'm talking about real intelligence.
California is the nations' top earning state and it is a Blue State. New York is second. How do you jerks explain this? Why do you continue to delude yourselves?
Marinmom
How long did they have to brainwash your before you actually believed all the nonsense you just wrote?
As just one prime example: cite for me the laws giving all these Federal dollars to churches to "buy their votes"?
I'm a conservative who is from California. I also invented things like the release assembly for satellites released from the cargo bay of the Space Shuttles. I can safely bet that I also have created more jobs in the US and overseas than you and your extended family combined.
Frankly those who brainwashed you did such you good job, you couldn't recognize facts if they were shoved down your throat.
@Larry
So you choose to ignore the fact that Red States are mostly welfare states?
Bush diverted federal emergency money into churches in order to buy their votes and loyalty. Google it.
Recently in my town a welfare mother bought herself a Lincoln Navigator. She fell behind on the payments and had it repossessed. Within one hour, she showed up at the dealership with a check for $800 made out by a local church and got her car back. The next day, she showed up with a check from the same church for $6800, made out by the same church and paid off the vehicle with FEDERAL MONEY! The church gets the glory and loyalty of the welfare mom, even though she didn't even belong to that church. They bought her vote. So, do not tell me that republicans are not buying votes through churches with FEDERAL money! I will laugh in your uninformed, ignorant face.
And Larry, I'm sure you vote republican because you can't control your women any other way.(In your pic you look kinda fat). I'm sure you are dead set against anything that frees women from the virtual burkas you impose on them. Lets face it, anyone who cares anything about women would not vote republican.
and the good thing noone will be buying THEIR SHnIT
THe payroll tax cut is illogical and cuts the nose off our own face. Payroll taxes feeds cash into social security. That program is already en route to solvency within a few decades...so the morons in Washington reduce the payroll tax to dry up social security even earlier?
Cut non-essential, frivolous governmental programs. Ron Paul does make compelling points about monetary waste.
Stopthebs, that argument would hold up if the economy had not been destroyed by Bush and Co. Unfortunately, the American people need all the help they can get right now and the payroll tax cut is a way to give us all some relief. During more prosperous times (like say, if a Democrat has been in the White House long enough) maybe we can do away with the cut. We all know there is waste in government and want to do away with it but don't sacrifice the good things about government by throwing the baby out with the bath water. Ron Paul does make some good points but unfortunately makes some whacko points also.
We wouldn't have to raise taxes much on anybody if we could just get rid of government waste and prioritize our spending to reflect current economic conditions.
Too many special interest extremists out there for such a concept to ever become reality, though.
stonedog34-
how many times have you heard politicians swear they will end waste and everytime nothing gets done. That is because study after study has shown the problem is not waste or duplication. Sure some exists but as a percentage it does not even move the needle in balancing the budget.
Our revenue is down because the economy is down.Now hold onto your hat stonedog- our economy is primarily consumer driven. In a recession what do people do- cut back. When products are not selling what do business' do- cut back.
So now you want the government to also cut back just as everyone else is. What do you think the effect would be?
This is the core of Keynesian economics- during a down turn the govt is the only player with the ability to pump revenue into the system. If you dont do this then the level of economic activity will sink.
Waste in MY STATE:
Just recently, in my state, the DOT cleared 3.2 million in the black for the end fiscal year. Instead of returning that money to the tax payers or saving it for something else the state chose to dump it into an outhouse style rest stop in Elby (near Mt. Rainier). It was in an existing building, an audit was done, a comparison made to what the money could glean in the private market (building a house brand new), and the disparity was staggering. Ultimately, the outhouse ended up costing 4.2 million. That's right, it went a million over. I'd call that waste.
Not too long ago, a guy was awarded a grant for a public arts project here for a couple mil. The problem was, back in the '70s he had apparently chained up a dog, shot it, photographed it, and called it art. Fast forward to now, somebody remembered it and raised such a stink that the contract was voided. The hitch was that there was a clause which guaranteed the artist a half million dollars, even though he didn't do anything. I'd call that waste.
Last year a super expensive 'green' wastewater treatment was opened down near Olympia. To celebrate that the state dumped a couple mil into a carnival style picnic (food and game stands) so that the public could come tour and marvel at the 'greenness' of the facility. At a sewage plant. Attendance was well below expectations. I'd call that waste.
Governor Gregoire recently dumped $50,000 into refinishing the governors desk in the capitol. $50,000. I guess it wasn't shiny enough for her. LOL I'd call that waste.
There was/ still is a section of highway up north of Seattle that was scheduled for some significant rehab. Because it was used by a few bicyclists, it was determined that 'escort vehicles' would be required for the safety of the cyclists. Again, an investigative report was done, and it was determined that the program was costing the taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 per trip. Often that was to escort a single cyclist. I'd call that waste.
That's just a small sampling of the infractions committed by the super progressive liberal democrat dominated Washington state government. Don't even get me started on Seattle (tunnel replacing the viaduct, revision of Mercer Street/Mercer Mess), etc.
Waste is everywhere. Only the blind don't see it. ;)
Stonedog34: Sue waste is EVERYWHERE, but if we had just a little more tax money...........
That exactly why "Keynesian" economics have never-ever worked nor ever will ...
@Stonedog, I don't know ANY liberal who, if they knew about the waste in Washington, would condone it. If you want to talk about "conservative" waste, we could be here all day. Quit drinking the Fux News Koolaid.
P.S. Maybe you should get more involved in politics and prevent this kind of waste from happening instead of just griping about it.
Instead of politician's deciding what we should go without, why don't they lead by example and start taking some of their plush benefits away and give themselves a big pay cut just to start with, then maybe all the rats would get off the ship, and they could be replaced with someone that really wanted to do something for the country instead of just themselves.
LOL @ marinmom
First off, I'm a libertarian, and politically independent, not a conservative. I don't watch anything on Fox except that medical drama 'House'.
Secondly, it is a FACT that Democrats dominate WA state government, from the governor on down, and anyone who lives here knows that we are one of the most liberal states in the nation. The liberals not only KNOW about the waste and corruption, they try to endorse it by making excuses for it.
And you know what makes it worse? When we face budget shortfalls, they cut services for the poor, they cut emergency response services, they threaten to release the mentally ill from Western State Hospital, they threaten to release violent rapists and murderers from prison, they threaten to cut monitoring for released predators, and they'll use any recent atrocity at their disposal to reinforce fear.
But they won't cut funding for art. They won't not vote themselves pay raises. They won't stop shoving light rail down our throats. They won't stop needlessly ripping up streets to put in bike lanes. They won't stop catering to all of the liberal special interest pet projects.
It has gotten so bad that some politicians won't talk to investigative journalists anymore (unless the story makes them look good) because they're tired of being called on their corrupt bullsh*t.
I'm not saying republicans are any better, but the problems in my state fall on the shoulders of the democrats.
marinmom, you should stop drinking the main scream media koolaid and get a clue. there is and always be lots of waste in both parties..............and they all know it
@Stonedog,
Aren't you lucky that you live in a liberal state? You could live in one of those Red welfare states like Mississippi. Then you could take your griping to a whole new level. That is unless your "conservative" neighbors pop a cap in your azz first. That's republican family values for you. Why do you stay in Washington? Don't you want to be with "your" people?
Government and waste are synonyms. I don't know whether you can have waste without government but I do know that you certainly cannot have government without waste.
Always has been, always will be. The only way to diminish the waste is to diminish the size of the government. Will you never learn?
At this time there is only about $8 trillion in existence in the entire world, and the united states government owes twice that much.
ROTFLMAO
Now THAT SH*T is truly funny! Back in my early twenties I got shot and robbed by a crackhead who was wandering down the street looking for somebody to rob.
Oh, did I mention that the guy was a MINORITY? But it wasn't a hate crime, even though I am white, and the guy admitted that he picked me because of it.
Nothing like your community making you feel like you are worth less through the way they handle crimes committed against you.
Yeah, I'm real lucky to live in a liberal run state. Right.
What a f*ckin joke!
marinmom --- -- You have been main-veining MSNBC to long. Learn to think for yourself. No need to read your comments, just listen to Rachel Maddow.
Pyro,
As to Keynesian economics, did you some how miss out on the years 1932 to 1981 the period of largest economic growth ever seen. Take 10 minutes and pull up Depressions , panics and recessions and see whose economic cycles they fall under it sure as hell isn't Keynesians. While your at it look up the Marshal Plan and the New Deal the two largest capital injections ever and see what they did for the world. When your done that check out US government spending 1945 through 1981 and watch your tax dollars become roads, universities, airports, satellites, computers, cell phones, wireless, satellite TV, the internet and pretty much every advance in medical science which have enabled advancement and job creation. If you want me to I can probably give you 100 different Keynesian capital injections from here to Japan and China that triggered economic growth. Projects like the Hoover Dam or the TVA have created more permanent wealth than private industry creates in a decade.
jkh
Taxing the rich doesn't pay the bills. This entire political class warfare attempt by the democrats is to nothing but a vote getter. They hope that those with little money will vote for them since they are saying they will make the rich pay for it.
The fact is if you took 100% of all the money of the top earners in the US you would not pay Washington's bills! In fact you wouldn't even but a dent in them. So the only thing to do is reduce spending!
Very true. Actually, every American owes $47,000 in federal debt. That means, if we don't stop the spending, our kids will owe more in federal debt than in college loans. Both parities are responsible. I'm sorry, but no new taxes for ANYONE until the federal budget is cut to 20% of GDP...called the House Balanced Budget Ammendment the Senate won't vote on...
Bull, make everybody pay their fair share. Especially those that pay nada, nothing. Pay or get out of America. Get grover and the goonies out of America and get you a real job Working.
Another right wing nutjob without a clue.
Devdoc12able, you are 100% correct. Too bad liberals are too ignorant to understand economics.
Something doesn't add up here. The two statements, "Taking 100% of all the money of the top earners in the US won't pay the bills", and "every American owes $47,000 in federal debt" can't possibly both be correct, unless you mean an incredibly small percentage of the top earners?
Studies have shown that if the rich were paying their fair share, it would put us almost back on track. I'm sure you republiturds ignored those studies.
If marijuana were legalized and taxed, it could COMPLETELY fund Universal Healthcare, further taking the burden off of employers. Other government agencies could be absorbed into UH, like the VA and Workmans Comp, Dept of Rehab, etc. If marijuana were legal, it would also remove the horrendous burden of the government to house and feed those convicted for it. People are going to smoke it whether it is legal or not, so we might as well get tax revenue for it.
It is ignorance and intolerance that are ruining our country. Both are republican values.
marinmon --------- What studies have shown this? Cite them so they can be examined. And, what is the fair share of taxes for the rich to pay. Be specific not ambiguous.
Why do you call people names? Why can't you engage in an adult discussion?
Easy fix, keep the rate the same, but tax all earned income (not money from interest, dividends, capital gains, retirements, etc). The income limit is currently about $106,000. Keep the rate with no income limit and the people who can afford more, pay more. And yes if you are wondering, I'm blessed to be in that category (but certainly not an evil 1%er)....
"not money from interest, dividends, capital" Why exempt that? That's why we're in this fix anyway.
Just another way to screw the poor.
I'm tired of hearing all the talk of making cuts in S.S. and medicare, they should cut the foreign aid if they need to, most of those countries don't appreciate it anyway. We just buy temporary friendship around the world like we can afford that.
seems easy enough not gonna happen though
Bruce, I agree but see my post above about legalized marijuana paying for your Social Security and Medicare. Wouldn't you rather pay nothing and have it funded by people who are going to use it anyway regardless of whether or not it is legal?
Don't be afraid of UH. There will be no "death panels" worse than what HMO's already dish out. If it doesn't cover everything you want, you can always purchase a supplement, like so many Americans already do. It works that way in England too and most middle income families can afford to purchase the supplement in order to go to better hospitals with private rooms, etc.
With legalized marijuana, you would not be paying the high tax rate like you do in England, France, etc because the pot would pay for it.
Medical marijuana has done wonders for the community I live in. It has brought in much needed tax dollars and the crime has dropped considerably. The police departments are totally on board with it and know that the tax dollars help to fund them as well. Even seniors are jumping on the bandwagon because they can use pot and it doesn't interfere with their other meds.
Biofuels can also be made from the plants themselves.Say goodbye to dependence on foreign oil. It's a win win situation.
Our problems can be solved but not until the ignorance and intolerance ends (I'm not saying that you are ignorant or intolerant, Bruce. I'm talking in general terms).
If they hire enough local people in full-time jobs that pay a living wage with job security, retirement and health care benefits, then I figure these corporations will have earned a tax cut. But if they continue to outsource our jobs to foreign countries with cheap sweatshop labor, and only hire temporary, "at-will" contractors to eventually replace their full-time labor force, I don't think these mid-to-large-sized American businesses have a right to claim any tax cuts, credits or stock options that go into the pocketbooks of their overpaid CEO's. (But that's just my humble opinion).
Amen, never happen til we have a whole democratic all 3 branches of government, paying constant attention to them and holding their feet to the fire all the while.
I believe rradiko has something there. It's not the biggest problem that "taxes" prevent companies from making more jobs, it's those obscenely overpaid fat cats that might not be able to take home so much money if they pay a decent tax rate, and pump more jobs into society. They might not be able to afford having 3 or 4 big, multi-million dollar homes all over the world, vacation spots, a yacht or personal jet. Nobody on this planet needs more than one home, and it's disgusting when they have more than one when there are literally millions of people in this world who can't buy a secure home to provide for their families and give them the stability of just the one, needed home.
so sorry, but I do. My husband works in D.C. our home is 2hours away. he lives during the week up there and comes home on the weekends. We need two homes. Unless he lives like surf.
The reason corporations and people have been able to prosper is because of the infrastructure of modern society. To somehow believe that the most successful should not pay enough to maintain or improve this environment is selfish in the extreme. If you don't believe in wealth distribution what do you believe?
You know how much the Feds spend on infrastructure? It's a TINY fraction of the Federal budget...
The only people that believe in wealth distribution are the receivers. Why should the "government" (a group of people that seek power) dictate what's fair? The beginning of the end....
Paul, Here we are not speaking about just the infrastructure that the Federal Govt. has engendered and nurtured-but rather about the structure of modern society as a whole. Not just the roads, schools, and other more evident signs of a thriving society-but also the unseen laws and civilities which allow people to live together. The very fabric of our society built through the diligent work of other people-millions of people over thousands of years. Not you. In short to not pay your share is both selfish and shortsighted.
What is the alternative to income redistribution? since you seem unwilling to answer this I will tell you what it is-concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer. Oligarchies in which laws are subservient to wealth. But do not automatically think taxation when you hear the term wealth redistribution. There are many roads to this goal. Better education, higher wages, more charitable giving are a few examples. Everyone owes that last full measure of devotion to the society that has treated them so generously.
anaxgnosis
Thank you. I'd vote these 2 posts a hundred times.
Our society provides many, many benefits to all. Far too many people take them for granted and don't even realize what throes benefits are. Yes, we see the roads, bridges, etc but how many think about the fact that you can be sure that when you pump a gallon of gas into you car it's really a gallon (because a government regulation not only requires it someone has a job to co around and actually confirm it). How many people take the safety of their food and water for granted? But our governments regulate it and employ people to make sure YOU don't have to think about it. These are just two examples where society tries to ensure the welfare of its citizens.
We cry foul when we read about other countries don't provide for the welfare of their citizens. We cry foul when we see other governments who take the monies and aid sent and just pad their own pockets rather than see to the needs of their own citizens.
Every single person who lives in our country has benefited from living here. Those lucky enough to have benefited more owe it to the society in general to give a bit more. They prospered off the work of many others.
Paul,
If you didn't have the government to dictate what's fair, there would be a couple of big thugs knocking down your door to take everything you own, as you type.
Don't even think about cutting a single dime in spending, except for the military of course.
Instead let's just continue to raise taxes, especially on the tens of thousands of small businesses that file personal income taxes instead of business and so are considered "affluent", "wealthy", "rich", or any other way that the Obama Campaign Headquarters can word it and create more class warfare filth.
so having a person who makes less than $40k/yr pay a higher percentage of their income than a "job creator" that shelters accounts offshore and outsources jobs is not class warfare? If there is class warfare, Obama did not start it. Getting a fair shake is not class warfare, its just fair. We are all Americans, none are better. Take your jingoism and shove it up your Foxhole.
Detroit Storm-
Give me ONE example of a $40k/yr person paying a higher percentage?
Remember, capital gains like Mitt Romney or Warren Buffet have already been taxed at the personal rate (36%) before that money is invested. The capital gains rate is on the "profit" or interest they made on that previously taxed money. Why is the government, you or anyone entitled to the profit from the money they risked? I think 15% is probably about as fair as you can get considering the investor is the one taking the risk, not the government.
I still can not understand why some believe that the wealthy are not paying their fair share. It seems to me that someone paying 15% of $10 million is paying $1.5million in taxes while someone paying 15% of $50k is only paying $7500. I realize that the wealthy are keeping more in their pocket but why should they be penalized for making the right choices and working hard. This almost seems like socialism to think otherwise. Large corporations employed thousands of people. To say they do not create jobs is a misnomer. Maybe they don't create jobs when someone specifically wants one, but they do create jobs as profits become available. Profits come from increased production, expanding markets, lower taxes, and overhead management amongst other things. I digress...
Wrong on so many points as to be laughable. Turn off Oreilly and wise up, dipstick.
Specifically what am I wrong about. Is it the math or who hires employees?
People, the 15% tax on dividends is money that was already taxed. And if they person reinvests the dividends, he or she not only pays the original 15%, they pay another 15%. It is disingenuous to say they are paying less in income taxes. Do you realize that 47% do not pay one penny in federal income tax? That's right, 47%. A number of those get a refund and do not pay a penny in federal income tax. Look it up on the internet. I am 100% right. A number of the 47% are people making 40 - 50,000 per year. I am all for taxing fairly. How about the 47% that do not pay one penny in income tax?
Whatever rate the earned income was taxed at before it was invested, the new unearned gains should be taxed at least twice as much. The capital is not being taxed a second time, the argument that taxes were paid on it once, so the unearned income doesn't need to be taxed once also, is just stupid. Like saying you don't need to put boots on to go out in the snow, because you already put socks on once and shouldn't have to do it again.
If you want that 47% to start paying income taxes, all you have to do is increase minimum wage. This will also increase consumer spending, which will create jobs.
@Cheryl
Fox zombie!
Math. Capital gains are PROFITS on what you invested, there is no double taxation! If I invest $50 in a stock, that stock splits and I sell it for $100--I get taxed on $50, NOT $100. $50 of passive income (meaning I didn't even move my butt off the couch to make it), but it is taxed at a lower rate than a plant worker who works 12 hour shifts at risk of life and limb.
Do your research on tax law people! When I first started studying tax law in the early 90's the capital gains tax was 35%!
Profit margin doesn't determine job creation. The need to meet demand for a product or service does. If a business can meet demand with the current workforce, there is no impetus to hire. Contrary to the beliefs of some, businesses don't exist to hire people; they exist to make a profit by selling goods and services that people need or want.
DetPaul,
Your tax statements are 100% false. The invested money may have been taxed at anywhere from 0% through 35% the profit as taxable income is subject to capital gains at 15%. This is not hard to understand. My effective rate of payment is higher than Mitt Romney's and he is doing a little better than my wife and I.
Sorry friend - not all republicans agree with the premise the wealthy should pay for any ax cuts - I'm not wealthy but comfortable. I have no desire to share any of my hard-earned money with some low life that won't work, won't be responsible and already pays nothing into the system. The idea sucks!
Hey Gary, come-on where is the compassion for your fellow man. Who will buy those $200 Nikes?
Gary, then the it doesnt apply to you, right. The wealthy dont care for you either bub.
When you go broke and end up in the streets don't come crying to me, moron.
Amen Gary !!! I've worked damn hard, payed for my own education, and found my niche ... I be damned if I will give mine to some slug just because they think someone owes them something ...
Remember the lady on the night obama won the election? She specifically stated "obama is going to buy me a new car"!!!! I am far from rich and only a middle class person. But, I do not feel the wealthy owe me a dime and I am not entitled to what most of them have worked for. Pathetic that anyone can feel they have a right to do nothing and take others money.
Lets see? I worked hard and earned the money, while you sat on your lazy ass. Now you want a piece of my money? That sounds like they want to add to the Lemming farm. No free lunches served.
lets see: I busted my ass, made less in a year than you do in a day, have no safety net, and you want ALL of my money? No, and I don't want yours either. Lets just make this fair, Mr. Capital Gains.
Arizonatime and Garyk- how do you know who is a lazy ass? why do the conservatives always denigrate people? Unemployment happens to good people also. I will wager you a Willard style bet-$10,000 that there are an equal number of businessmen who will use and abuse any loophole to gain a financial advantage as their are people who would rather take unemployment then work.
Look at Willard- the man is worth how many millions if not billion and he is still doing everything LEGAL to minimize his tax burden. Not illegal activity but why the Cayman Islands? Why is capital taxed at a lower rate then labor?
Are you paid hourly at this Lemming site?
arizonatime- not sure what you mean.
Steak or potted meat? I actually prefer the latter and I bet 10,000, I know what you like? WAKE UP AMERICA.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
But, the senselessly low taxes on capital gains are danged close.
To John Kyl: What are you talking about? Makiing people pay more for drugs because they can afford to? You are suddenly a turncoat, John, and I suggest you consult with your wealthy contributors. The wealthy can turn on you very quickly, John, and even vote Democrat. Why you, John? Let the Democrats do this -- and loose.
GL, like I told Gary, the wealthy doesnt care for you either, including Kyl.
Democrats, will devour their own kind.
The GOP will shot their mom and dad, then whore out their children.
Now that is quite a statement for someone that loves the Obama, the "Long Legged Mac Daddy".
Only if he his your pimp should you call him that.
Maybe he is your bitch?
Eh??????
Thats you Arizonatine, The BIT&H
to the Republicans in Congress: Don't allow this issue of who has to pay more for Part d Drugs to weaken the GOP at the polls. Millionaires are only human -- they will change their vote in November. Make the Democrats in Congress own up to being the enemy of the rich when it comes to tax measures. The government does not owe anybody a living. Repeat that to yourselves, GOP legislators, and follow that rule. It isn't up to our government to add to poor people's income, or to add to their wherewithall. The Tea Party will make you poor, Mr. GOP legislator, if you aren't careful.
Getting the affluent to pay for payroll tax cut = Redistribution of Wealth.
Redistribution of Wealth = Socialism
Getting the affluent to pay for payroll tax cut = Socialism
If a=b and b=c, then a=c.
to weak-kneed GOP legislators: Keep in mind that the Government is not banker for the poor. As for tax legislation, It's our money, not yours,and we don't need you in congress if you disagree.
with 56% of the fed budget tied up in entitlements i'd say you're wrong.
the govt has become a piggy bank for the poor.
Gorden should we spend it in Iran. Is that where you want to spend your money?
Social Security and medicare are not entitlements. Workers and employers have paid in all the funds. If Congress used the funds for anything else, Congress are Crooks.
Second- charge social security and medicare on all earnings including bonuses and deferred comp. I have to pay on my 401K contributions, everybody else should too. No CAPS, No Exceptions!
Take the cap right off completely for everyone no matter what you make, then put the politicans into the same fund S.S. that everyone else has and S.S. would be fixed overnight.
If everyone knew anything about the tax law, they would know "fair" (Just to all parties; equitable). You tell me how fair it is that the government decided in Jan 1937 to steal our money and tell us we would get it when we turned 65 when the life expectancy was under 60. The thieves in Washington want to take from the hard working and give to the people that do not want to work. Does anyone know that 1 out of every 6 checks paid out of S.S is for a disability payment. Maybe we need to get rid of the ambulance chasers and make government officials play by the rules that the rest of us have too. Have a great night.
alex,
You post things that are just flat out untrue. How exactly does 51% of the budget go to the poor. Are Social Security and Medicaire for the poor? They are our largest entitlements. How about education? Only the poor.
jkh
i agree... surely they aren't paying enough already.
maybe if we take 70% of their pay and dole it out to all the sponges they might actually take their sh!t elsewhere... and then
GREECE... here we come baby.
alexinPA: I agree with you sir. But why not 80% taxes on the "wealthy"?? That way we can have 4 years of Unemployment benefits!!! That will absolutely fix the economy. Because some genius earlier said "Give a man an unemployment check, and he will spend it all". Just think if we doubled the unemployment benefits, and gave them out for a few more years?? Our economy would really thrive then!!
While it's true that if you give a man an unemployment check, he will spend it, think about this for a moment. Give a man a real paycheck in the form of EARNED income then he will spend it as well. Then our economy would thrive also. If our country is dependent on the small business owner to employ people, then they are the ones who need the ^ucking tax breaks in this country.
Insider bill: If by that you mean the kind of law that put Tom deLay in jail and took hiim out of Congress, please have your staff look up the address for Hell and go there. Would it be too much to ask that you legislators in D C think deeply and long and hard about tax legislation before you pass it, and work it out so it doesn't have loopholes? Poor Tom DeLay. He was crushed by the kind of law you are talking about passing.
If you love Socilaism then vote for Obama. I do not not one Veteran that ever fought for Socialism. Better take a look at Obama's background. His mentor's were Jeremiah Wright and Biil Ayres. plus his mother and her lovers were anti America, and hated America and what it stood for.
Arizonatime, with all of those made in China products you buy, I dont care what you have to say. Most people dont. Stop wasting Levy's money. Or his he you supervisor?
Go to the mail box. i am am sure your food stamps and welfare check in the mail.
nope, wrong person.
Yup. Anybody, that would ever vote for that fraud to begin with, and after three years cannot figure it out? You need to flush out your headgear Pilgrim.
AriNAzi - Flush out your ass, son, you've had your head up there waaaay too long.
You posted so many lies it isn't worth the trouble to shoot them down.
Grow up and shut up, punk.
A lot of those who voted for President Obama the first time are not satisfied with his performance to date. They won't be voting for him again. They'll be voting against his opposition, in a desperate bid for self preservation.
Arizonatime, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
A 3.25% tax on success? Brilliant!
@Evil Business Owner, you did not get there alone. American consumers made you what you are and don't you ever forget it.
Mr. Evil Business Owner should have a sign out front of his business expressing his views on how he's over taxed....l'd like to see how busy he is then. Mopping up tears no doubt.
These Crooked Republicans are going to pay more Taxes. Their Free Ride is Over. Grover and the goonies its time to go Abroad, get out, Leave. Your days are numbered. Just like the Voter turnout in the republican primary or caucus nobody cares about. WAKE UP AMERICA.
What no rich Democrat's? Ummmm.
How much do you think the wealthy should pay? They already pay through the nose, where 50% of the country pays nothing. Greed and covetness will be the death of this country. If people earn their money honesty, they should be able to keep most of it.
@Nancy, if the tax code and business practices were fair, more people would have jobs and be able to pay their fair share of taxes. Why do you think that number is so high? Were you in a coma during the Bush years? Also, remember that part of that 50% are wealthy people not paying taxes, not just the poor. If republicans keep voting in greedy stupid morons like Bush, Romney, etc it's going to go a lot higher than 50% at poverty level. Obama won't let that happen but your GOP buddies would happily throw us all under the bus in order to stuff their coffers full like they did during the Bush era. Besides that, republicans are hell bent to start another war and you can bet they will have a draft this time and send your kids and mine to die in their stupid war. Screw that and screw anyone who thinks voting GOP is a good idea.
Marinmom is truly braindead....
I support redistribution of the wealth.
And by redistribution of the wealth, I mean all the money from everyone else funneled directly into my personal account. That's a distribution I can get behind: A delta function.
Or, we could have a fair system, where everyone pays the same percentage, no loopholes, deductions, or "credits." You know, a system where no matter where your income comes from, how many kids you have, or if you are paying a mortgage, you pay the same percentage as everyone else.
Fat chance of that, though...
goonie in charge.
In a capitalist society the ones who should pay are the ones who benefit. We all benefit but at different levels. Therefore we should contribute at different rates. To expect some form of retirement and social services when we all retire I think is something we all expect in a first world country. If we have no problem socializing the risks of capitalism (three baliouts of the banks and wall street in my life time (so far)) then I can't understand why we wouldn't expect the largest benefactors to pony up and pay thier share. Afterall how much bailout money did you recieve? Think about it!
jj....and what's their "fair share" to you?
They are taxed at 35% now, and that's JUST at the Federal level. And in places like California tack on another 11% for State taxes (with Democrats wanting to up it to 13%). And how much more at local levels are they paying?
And what do YOU pay? What should be your "fair share" since they pay close to HALF of their income in just taxes? 10%? Maybe? And you probably think that's too much.
And meanwhile, the teacher's Union chief in New Jersey, who makes at least $422,000 a year, when told that the poor can't afford to shift to private schools without government help (vouchers) said, "Well, you know, life's not always fair..."
Wow, the unions who "care" so much for the "working man" and the "uneducated" in this nation actually don't care about the poor not being able to get vouchers so they can get OUT of the union controlled public schools and actually get a DECENT education for their children with an opportunity to maybe get out of their poverty? Say it isn't so!!!
The unions are just like you. Let someone else pay for it as long as you get "yours".
Get corporations and churches off welfare. Legalize and tax marijuana and use the tax revenue to completely fund Universal Healthcare. Corporations would benefit from it and republicans wouldn't have to drink so much alcohol. They get so cranky and unreasonable when they drink so much.
Sorry Cheryl, it's the school boards, who force the teachers to teach nothing but what's on the standardized test, not the union.
Let's see...the top 10% pay 70% of the tax bill...JJ, I think they're paying their "fair" share!
jwilson, do you think that it is enough for a billionaire to pay only 8 percent in taxes? to recieve corporate bonuses that are tax sheltered? Yes it's true that the top 10% may pay 70% of all taxes collected. Keep one thing in mind: If you were a small business owner and had 4 employees, and 3 out of the 4 were paid 3,000 a year and the fourth was paid 300,000 a year. The combined total of taxes for the 3 would be approx: $900.00. For the forth employee his tax bill at 8% would be approx: $27,000 a year. Now let me ask you a real question here, do you honestly believe that the top 10% pay their fair share? To whom much is given, much is required. This is an America for all people, not just the few. So my next question is this. What is a fair tax rate for all Americans to pay. The next election might determine that.
booty007 ------ Yeah, if the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes as you say , then , they are paying more that their fair share.
And , by the way, everyone should pay some amount in income tax. We're all in this together. Everyone that benefits from our society should pay something to support it.
Booty, yes...I do think it's enough for a billionaire to pay 8% in taxes; however, show me a billionaire paying that amount...according to IRS statistics, most millionaires paid about 24% in 2009 and are expected to pay about 29% in 2011. Whereas, the ave middleclass is going to pay around 15%. Warren Buffett is the exception, not the norm and is quite the hypocrite.
You really need to stop spewing the Dem talking points and do some research...even MSNBC and Huffington Post reported that millionaires are paying around 22-23%.