Fiscal Cliff -O- Rama!!

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Higher income taxes on the extremely wealthy is not punishing them for their success. A progressive taxation policy creates the best possible macroeconomic outcome for everyone.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

It's really just for fairness. Why put the tax burden on the income brackets that need their money the most? It makes complete sense to shift a bit of the weight over the rich, who have large stockpiles of money and the ability to pay a little bit more in taxes without suffering at all.

 

Note: I'm not advocating Europe-level upper class income rates.

 

No fair would be having everybody pay the same percentage of their income.

 

It has been stated already that half of the taxes are paid by 2%. Now being middle class (finally) and fucking broke most of my like I even still wonder why in the hell 98% can not pull their weight ? It makes no sense. It is because of all these sheisty mofos with their hands out.

 

I am all for helping people in need but damn why dont you give something back instead of crying about how you are a victim the whole time. Jim Braddock took aid in the great depression. When he got a bit of good fortune he gave every dime back. We dont see that anymore because it is easier to whine than work.

 

For those who legitimately need it then they should receive it but their are to many abuses of the system for me to believe that 98 % of the country cant come up with the other half.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Higher income taxes on the extremely wealthy is not punishing them for their success. A progressive taxation policy creates the best possible macroeconomic outcome for everyone.

 

Then what would you call it ? You have more money so we want you to foot the bill for half the country and we want to tax you more. That doesnt sound like a reward to me.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Then what would you call it ? You have more money so we want you to foot the bill for half the country and we want to tax you more. That doesnt sound like a reward to me.

 

I'd call it good economic policy. There's no such thing as fairness in economy theory, and progressive taxation policy leads to the best macro outcomes. They're taxed more because they don't spend 90% of their income like most do, therefore they can afford to pay more. That's really all there is to it.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I'd call it good economic policy. There's no such thing as fairness in economy theory, and progressive taxation policy leads to the best macro outcomes. They're taxed more because they don't spend 90% of their income like most do, therefore they can afford to pay more. That's really all there is to it.

 

yup sounds like they are getting jobbed to me.

 

This is one thing I hate about liberal economic theory 101. The rich people are who we need to hold accountable because they are paying more than their fair share already so obviously they can afford to. Lets take advantage of them so we can sit here in awe of our social programs that reward lazy asses.

 

I am not saying that is the majority of the middle class, but we need to come up with something better than just leaning on 2 % of the country. And that includes myself I am for EQUAL taxes even if that means I have to start drinking PBR instead of bud light.

 

Another thing with this is people confuse wants and needs. People dont NEED half the shit they have but WANT it so when they cant have it they get into a bitch fit.

 

I dont understand how the rich people are the ones that need to help out more. Do you think it fair they should have to pay for people other than themselves ?

[OSUViking 505]

yup sounds like they are getting jobbed to me.

 

They make insane amounts of money and get taxed some. Yeah, they are totally getting "jobbed".

 

This is one thing I hate about liberal economic theory 101. The rich people are who we need to hold accountable because they are paying more than their fair share already so obviously they can afford to. Lets take advantage of them so we can sit here in awe of our social programs that reward lazy asses.

 

So because of a lazy minority of people on welfare and unemployment, we need to shift tax focus to the middle class and focus on taxing the people who use these? The benefit system works in some cases, but certainly not when it comes to welfare and unemployment.

 

I am not saying that is the majority of the middle class, but we need to come up with something better than just leaning on 2 % of the country. And that includes myself I am for EQUAL taxes even if that means I have to start drinking PBR instead of bud light.

 

Flat tax is not the solution for a fair tax. It literally will just exacerbate the income inequality in the US. I already showed you why the flat tax isn't the solution.

 

Another thing with this is people confuse wants and needs. People dont NEED half the shit they have but WANT it so when they cant have it they get into a bitch fit.

 

We live in a consumerist society. That is a characteristic of a consumerist society.

 

I dont understand how the rich people are the ones that need to help out more. Do you think it fair they should have to pay for people other than themselves ?

 

I mean, we've only spelled it out how many times? It's as simple as this: the rich can afford to pay more in taxes and still lead a very lavish lifestyle, while the average middle class family will struggle heavily if we raise taxes on them. It's not a "the rich are getting dogged on" situation at all, because that implies we are actively out to rip away every penny the rich have earned. The only reason the rich are expected to pay more is because they can afford it, while the rest of the country cannot. I really don't see what's so wrong about that. It's not an anti-rich conspiracy.. :/

[Omerta+ 1,206]

They make insane amounts of money and get taxed some. Yeah, they are totally getting "jobbed".

 

I guess "some" is half. No everyone else gets taxed "some" The wealthy gets taxed quite a bit.

 

 

So because of a lazy minority of people on welfare and unemployment, we need to shift tax focus to the middle class and focus on taxing the people who use these? The benefit system works in some cases, but certainly not when it comes to welfare and unemployment.

 

 

We should fix that before we ask anybody to foot the bill for things that we can fix. It is time to stop looking for a hand out.

 

Flat tax is not the solution for a fair tax. It literally will just exacerbate the income inequality in the US. I already showed you why the flat tax isn't the solution.

 

 

You showed me nothing of consequence. You gave your opinion. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is the same as ine and the article I showed you. Again you have showed me nothing.

 

We live in a consumerist society. That is a characteristic of a consumerist society.

 

That is half the problem. If people quit blowing their money on dumb shit then maybe they would have some to spend. I watched BOTH my parents work two jobs so that my old man could open up his own business. I you are not willing to invest in yourself that much I dont want to hear about how mistreated you are if you can not put in the hard work.

 

I mean, we've only spelled it out how many times? It's as simple as this: the rich can afford to pay more in taxes and still lead a very lavish lifestyle, while the average middle class family will struggle heavily if we raise taxes on them. It's not a "the rich are getting dogged on" situation at all, because that implies we are actively out to rip away every penny the rich have earned. The only reason the rich are expected to pay more is because they can afford it, while the rest of the country cannot. I really don't see what's so wrong about that. It's not an anti-rich conspiracy.. :/

 

Yeah that is simple, and in my opinion completely retarded. I dont know how many times I can say this but, THE RICH ALREADY PAY MORE !!!!! It is not like things are even now and we are asking them to bear more burden. They already are. Now it is time to look elsewhere other than taking other people's money. Improve food stamps, cant be that hard. Reform Social Security. Reform the way we spend money on the military (not cut but make it more efficient.) Two of those I have some suggestions (military and food stamps) the rest I dont get paid to do.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Dear Mr. President:

During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive

Shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive

Brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone. While glancing over her

Patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed

Me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the

Result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly

Acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

It is a culture based on the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me".

Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care

Difficulties will disappear.

 

Respectfully,

STARNER JONES, MD

 

This was written by an ER doctor and kinda says it all.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Again, the upper class and middle class need to pay more taxes and the government needs to cut social programs.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

This was written by an ER doctor and kinda says it all.

 

All it says is that the abuse by a few should dismantle the system for all, which is ridiculous.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

All it says is that the abuse by a few should dismantle the system for all, which is ridiculous.

 

how do you know it is a few ? This is actually pretty common place, same with food stamps. Both of those are so widely abused this is probably more the norm than the exception.

 

Contrary to popular belief not all people are good and in todays society it is probably about dead even with good folks losing ground everyday.

[GA_Eagle 595]

The problem with this assumption is that taxes aren't just going up for the super rich. There are a lot of small businesses making around $300,000 who file their taxes as individuals, not as corporations. Considering how the economy's been the last few years, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the tax hikes are going to hit them hard.

 

 

This is also why I think that the tax hikes should be on higher amounts of income. $250,000 seems way too close to the middle class for it to be just taxing the super rich.

 

I think the amount they set is kinda scary, too. I don't think enough attention was paid to your posts, but this will hurt the small business owner at the somewhat arbitrary amount they set. It's might be tough to set a cut off line, everyone near the bottom of the cutoff will be screwed... It is what it is I guess.

Edited December 11, 2012 by GA_Eagle

[Guest Phailadelphia]

how do you know it is a few ? This is actually pretty common place, same with food stamps. Both of those are so widely abused this is probably more the norm than the exception.

 

Contrary to popular belief not all people are good and in todays society it is probably about dead even with good folks losing ground everyday.

 

 

How do you know it's more than a few? There aren't many (if any) real studies on nationwide welfare abuse out there. The best, albeit incomplete, study is by The Department of Labor but it only studies unemployment insurance fraud (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-11-02/6-11find.htm). They found abuse in only 1.9% of the total total UI payments. I don't know if that extends across other welfare programs but I don't think it's fair to just assume the majority of welfare programs are being abused and should be ended if the number of people who legitimately need them significantly outweigh those who abuse them.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The Weekly Standard (admittedly a conservative site) is saying Obama wants to take 3/4 of the proposed tax dollars and funnel it back into new spending programs while the other 1/4 would go to deficit reduction.

 

Not sure how much to believe them with their obvious agenda, but take it for what it is worth.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

How do you know it's more than a few? There aren't many (if any) real studies on nationwide welfare abuse out there. The best, albeit incomplete, study is by The Department of Labor but it only studies unemployment insurance fraud (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-11-02/6-11find.htm). They found abuse in only 1.9% of the total total UI payments. I don't know if that extends across other welfare programs but I don't think it's fair to just assume the majority of welfare programs are being abused and should be ended if the number of people who legitimately need them significantly outweigh those who abuse them.

 

As you said there are no real conclusive studies to prove one way or the other. But it seems almost everyday that you see on CNN or see it yourself in stores abusing it. I am just going by what I have seen personally so I may be exposed to the huge assholes that ruin it for everybody but it is unlikely that all the crappy ones have followed me around my entire adult life.

 

and did you mean outnumber or outweigh ? That is a huge difference on my conclusion of that statement or not.

 

I think if the number who abuse it outnumber those who dont it should be cut out and we start from scratch on a new system. There are ways to improve it now but it would have people in an up roar because their free ride is gone.

 

Again I cant say it enough that I am all for helping out the middle class and those who need it like the single parents and low income families. I just think that the free loaders need to be dealt with before we can implement a new system that would allow for them to have the help they need without allowing people to sit on their ass for 6 months collecting unemployment while someone working at macdonalds who need every dime of their check footing the bill.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Ngata_Chance

[Guest Phailadelphia]

As you said there are no real conclusive studies to prove one way or the other. But it seems almost everyday that you see on CNN or see it yourself in stores abusing it. I am just going by what I have seen personally so I may be exposed to the huge assholes that ruin it for everybody but it is unlikely that all the crappy ones have followed me around my entire adult life.

 

and did you mean outnumber or outweigh ? That is a huge difference on my conclusion of that statement or not.

 

I think if the number who abuse it outnumber those who dont it should be cut out and we start from scratch on a new system. There are ways to improve it now but it would have people in an up roar because their free ride is gone.

 

Outnumber.

 

Again I cant say it enough that I am all for helping out the middle class and those who need it like the single parents and low income families. I just think that the free loaders need to be dealt with before we can implement a new system that would allow for them to have the help they need without allowing people to sit on their ass for 6 months collecting unemployment while someone working at macdonalds who need every dime of their check footing the bill.

 

We're in complete agreement here. Welfare abuse makes my blood boil too. I just don't want to leave out to dry those who truly need it and use it honestly.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I think that welfare is one of those things thats cheaper to pay to undeserving people than to try to cut all the undeserving people out.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I think that welfare is one of those things thats cheaper to pay to undeserving people than to try to cut all the undeserving people out.

 

That is part of the reason we are in this mess. WE are to concerned with what is easy instead of what is right.

 

Turn the tables on this to a right guy who uses tax exemptions and umbrella corporations to pay less taxes that a guy who earns 20,000 a year. People would be/are screaming at the top of their lungs about it. But let free loaders who claim poor do this and it is somehow absolved because they should have our pity and become charity cases.

 

Bullshit they are both wrong so if you bitch about one it is hypocritical to turn around and not cry foul for the other.

 

If we would just take the harder route that is the right thing to do instead of just saying well it is easier therefore acceptable maybe we could get somewhere.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Outnumber.

 

 

 

We're in complete agreement here. Welfare abuse makes my blood boil too. I just don't want to leave out to dry those who truly need it and use it honestly.

 

I dont either but I think welfare is to the point where it needs to be scrapped and then we need to make a new system that has much more moderation. I guarantee you those who actually need it would not be opposed to having a little more oversight because A.) They truly need it, B.) They have nothing to hide. It is the ones that would whine bitch and moan about it being cut because they know that they would lose a free ride.

[blotsfan 2,112]

That is part of the reason we are in this mess. WE are to concerned with what is easy instead of what is right.

 

Turn the tables on this to a right guy who uses tax exemptions and umbrella corporations to pay less taxes that a guy who earns 20,000 a year. People would be/are screaming at the top of their lungs about it. But let free loaders who claim poor do this and it is somehow absolved because they should have our pity and become charity cases.

 

Bullshit they are both wrong so if you bitch about one it is hypocritical to turn around and not cry foul for the other.

 

If we would just take the harder route that is the right thing to do instead of just saying well it is easier therefore acceptable maybe we could get somewhere.

I don't understand your point. Mine was that I'd rather have the government pay people money that they don't deserve rather than spending 2x the money to make sure they don't get it.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I don't understand your point. Mine was that I'd rather have the government pay people money that they don't deserve rather than spending 2x the money to make sure they don't get it.

 

And you came up with that twice the amount figure....how exactly ?

 

Mine is that doing the right thing should be valued more than taking the easy way when you know damn well it is wrong.

 

And how would it cost the government more money ?

[blotsfan 2,112]

How does the government determine whether people need the money or not? That takes extra research and bureaucracy, which costs money.

[OSUViking 505]

Bring back the WPA? I was reading an article from Forbes (admittedly, it's biased but it seemed like it had some good points, so do listen) that explained that the opportunity cost of hiring workers to just do public works on infrastructure and other projects is heavily in the government's favor. Essentially, we'd be taking people who otherwise weren't looking for jobs or couldn't find full employment and be putting them to work. When the economy has recovered, the workers are released with the expectation that there will be a bountiful supply of private sector jobs.

 

How does this apply to the welfare abuse? Well, I thought of a way that we might be able to fix that. Although I do believe the abusers are the minority here, I think that if a person on welfare cannot find full employment after 4 months, he should be mandated to do public works.

 

OBVIOUSLY, this has some flaws and frankly it's simply a starting point.

[OSUViking 505]

And you came up with that twice the amount figure....how exactly ?

 

Mine is that doing the right thing should be valued more than taking the easy way when you know damn well it is wrong.

 

And how would it cost the government more money ?

 

One word: regulation. The government would need to establish a regulatory agency to monitor welfare. This agency would need funding, and those operating it would need pay. Overall, I think that the increased regulation would be bad and cost way too much.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

One word: regulation. The government would need to establish a regulatory agency to monitor welfare. This agency would need funding, and those operating it would need pay. Overall, I think that the increased regulation would be bad and cost way too much.

 

So it would create jobs and that is bad ? I thought that is what we needed.