Because it doesn't jibe with what you said previously. You stated the tax burden should be more evenly distributed. for that to happen the rich should pay less, the middle class should pay more, and the poor should pay a lot more. So which is it? Do you favor a more evenly distributed tax burden, or a rate increase for everyone? From where we are today, the two are mutually exclusive. Explain to me how everyone having less money will benefit any business. Are you a government contractor? So your answer to low demand is to allow the government to rip more money out of the economy? Does that really make sense to you? As a percentage of GDP (what really matters) spending has never touched the levels we see today. Bush was bad, and Obama is double plus bad. The Europeans, except Germany, backed away from the deep spending cuts. They liked all the freebies too much. Then how does it make sense that the middle class are carrying water for the rich? Your arguments all fall apart under any type of scrutiny. What are you talking about? The average 4 person family with with a mortgage and a dog would see their taxes increase 4 fold in moving from the current rates to the Clinton rates. A 400% increase!!! Is that what you want? Agreed.
I get stressed about nothing that I have no control over. I look at it as my price for citizenship in America. We sometimes pay taxes for things we will never utilize like disability or welfare. But the nation needs it to provide for the indigent and the disabled. The best interests of the nation are important to me. I think America has prospered for 200 years because of a "We're all in this together" spirit. The Republicans are trying to change it to "Every man for himself." The rich man and the big corporations win in that scenario and the average citizen loses. I think Social Security needs an overhaul, but I have never minded paying for it. I think that, given a choice, people will choose to pay more SS taxes rather than cut SS benefits. The Republicans are on the wrong side of this because the GOP fat cats can't relate to people that are counting on SS benefits.
America has prospered b/c "we the people" . Not because of the Govt. machine. SS is a joke. People want to keep their own money not loan it to the Govt. You have a problem with every fat cat and corp. in America but somehow look past the largest crook of them all. Washington.
The actual formula is far more complicated than it needs to be, but effectively they consider a government pension and social security benefits to double-dipping even if we have paid into both of them and are invested in both. The WEP law stands for "Windfall Elimination Provision". I might end up with a minimum SS benefit of $150/month. I hardly consider that a windfall, but it might cover my beer expenses if I'm still alive at 65.
Do you realize how ironic this notion is? We are a GOVERNMENT of the People. We have met the enemy and he is us. Actually people (72%) do not want Social Security to go away. You are quite wrong. http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm Poll Finds Wariness about cutting Entitlements
Raising taxes will not create a single job. BUT! Here is what it will do. Coupled with spending cuts to defense and entitlements as part of a larger deficit reduction package it will create confidence in the market. I don't think anyone who isn't inside the beltway truly understands how much the gridlock in Washington has stymied our economic recovery. As long as Washington keep pushing each other to the brink just to score political points uncertainty will remain. I support following the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction plan that calls for around a trillion in increased revenues over the next 10 years and around 3 trillion in spending cuts. It seems to fall somewhere in the middle of the President's plan and the Ryan plan, and was put together by a bi-partisan panel of mostly retired congressmen. I was very disappointed in Obama when he chose not to follow the advice of a commission that he created. Why even create the panel if you aren't going to heed their advice.
politicians will do what ever they can get away with to get elected. that said, I haven't seen the dems trying to suppress votes lately where as the Republicans are stomping their foot and screaming voter fraud and trying to pass legislation to prevent voter fraud when in actuality we have 16 cases of voter fraud over the past four Presidential elections. the value of a higher turnout would obviously be a better sampling of the entire electorate. when any group, regardless of political affiliation, starts suppressing votes it means that they do not believe that they can win on the merit of their ideas alone.
I don't understand why you are having such a hard time understanding what I am saying. Once more: If the effective tax rate goes up an equal percentage for everyone, then everyone pays more. Take this for instance: three wage earners....one makes 25,000 per year, one makes 100,000 per year and one makes 400,000 per year. If you raise the effective tax rate on everyone by 1%, just for an example, then the guy who makes 25,000 will pay an additional $250, the guy making 100,000 will pay an additional $1000 and the guy making 400,000 will pay an additional $4,000. While the amounts are substantially different it is all relative because everyone is paying an equal percentage. How is this gouging the rich? As I explained earlier to Pride, raising taxes will not create a single job but it will, coupled with spending cuts, put our government on a path to fiscal wellness which in turn creates confidence in the economy and the markets. When we finally reach some kind of compromise on reducing our deficit you will see businesses starting to hire again, invest in their own infrastructure again and jobs will be the result of that. It's not about government ripping money out of our pockets, it's about government paying off it's debts so that it is no longer a burden on the overall economy. I support the Bowles-Simpson plan that would increase revenues by a trillion dollars or so over the next ten years and reduce spending to the tune of 3 trillion over that same time period. this was a bipartisan plan. Not true. We have actually had higher debt to gdp ratios a few different times in our history. After WW2 debt was about 130% of gdp and we made spending cuts and increased taxes to get our house back in order and it worked. Our economic woes in the early 90's were not comparable in severity to the current crisis but the same formula worked then. It's no secret what works; it's just that our politics are so gridlocked we cannot get anything accomplished. What I meant is why do you personally defend tax cuts for the rich? Are you rich? For the past 11-12 years we've experienced the consequences of a 400% decrease. do you want more of this?
I don't know how more plainly I can explain this to you. You stated you want to 1) distribute the tax burden more evenly and 2) raise the effective rates for everyone. You cannot accomplish them both. The rich already shoulder a portion of the tax burden that is larger than the percentage of income they receive. In order to more evenly distribute the tax burden you would have to effect tax decreases for the rich, which necessitates not raising their rates. The goals of the things you want to do aren’t in congruence. Because the rich already pay the highest effective rates and shoulder a portion of the burden that is larger than their share of the income. In light of that I don't support anyone paying more in taxes when the government has taken no steps to curb runaway spending. They can't even pass a fricking budget. How can you advocate more taxes for anyone when the government will just spend any additional revenues increased taxes will create. Not at all relevent, but my network is positive. No. I want the damned government to close a few freaking post offices or army bases.
Listen my friend, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. By raising everyone's taxes by 1%, just for example, you are evenly distributing the tax increases on everyone. I cannot make it any simpler than that. the rich pay the lowest effective rates right now. Romney paid somewhere in the neighborhood of 13% last year and you probably paid around 20-22%. 13 is not lower than 20. I agree with you that we need a budget. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a law passed that said congress had to balance the budget every fricking year unless we are at war or in an economic crisis. There is absolutely no excuse for not producing a budget. As I have been saying repeatedly, I favor a comprehensive debt reduction package that would obviously include a budget. It is relevant. If you are not rich then tell me why you are protecting the rich? If you are rich then I need no explanation. Me too. Like I told you earlier, let's make all the spending cuts first and then see how much we need to make up with increased taxes. Maybe after spending cuts we find that we only need to close some loopholes here and there to achieve balance and everyone can be happy. Probably not, but let's see how far we can get by cutting spending first.
