Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Do you honestly think....

Posted 6 years ago on March 21, 2012, 6:05 a.m. EST by toonces (-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

That taxing rich people more will solve the debt and borrowing problem?

Do you honestly think that taking more from "rich" people will balance the budget?

Do you honestly think that taxing the rich more will solve any problem?

What exactly will taking money from "rich" people actually solve?

How does taking money from "rich" people improve your life or the life of others?



Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by PandoraK (1678) 6 years ago

Do you honestly think that eliminating social programs will solve the borrowing and debt problem?

That eliminating education funds will balance the budget?

That Social Security, which citizens paid into, were promised interest, and was 'borrowed from' doesn't need to be paid like any other debt?

That by privatizing all government programs will solve any problem, when private includes profits to the entity which 'oversees' the program?

Exactly what will the elimination and privatization of programs actually solve?

How does 'taking money' from the middle class improve your life or the life of others?

Rhetorical questions usually lead to more rhetorical questions.

If one is to address the underlying issue, one has to address the entire issue.

Government waste, allocations to the various departments must be spent in full each fiscal year, if not spent, the allocation will be lessened possibly by amounts which would make the department non-effective. When allocations are spent, and budget deficits occur this allows for an increase of future allocations.

Revenue vs collections. Several billion dollars are failed to be collected on a quarterly basis, often there is a failure to collect funds which are due or delayed and deferred, pending a less profitable year to offset the amounts owed. Failure to disallow defunct tax loopholes to be used. Failure to to collect on debt owed to the US by foreign interests.

Oil, land and graze leases at below fair market value.

Military spending...

It's more than a spending problem, more than a revenue problem.

[+] -4 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Government waste, allocations to the various departments must be spent in full each fiscal year, if not spent, the allocation will be lessened possibly by amounts which would make the department non-effective....

Then it would seem to be an ineffective program that doesn't need to be funded, or that they are spending money just to spend it to justify their existence.

Revenue vs collections. Several billion dollars are failed to be collected on a quarterly basis, often there is a failure to collect funds which are due or delayed and deferred, pending a less profitable year to offset the amounts owed....

We are TRILLIONS in trouble, billions are an accounting error.


[-] 4 points by PandoraK (1678) 6 years ago

Did you not note 'on a quarterly basis'? I opted not to include estimated amounts per quarter.

Since many departments have varying expenses, and allocations are set amounts, it makes sense to 'spend' the money once allocated since expenses can and often do increase.

Nice to believe that simple solutions work for complex problems.

[-] 5 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

I honestly think this is a dishonest and misleading post.


[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

You are an idiot. A question cannot, by its' nature, be a dishonest or misleading post. Go cash your check, troll.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Excuse me?

You're the one that posts the same nonsense over and over and over and over.

Expecting a different response.

Now, what's that a definition of?


[-] 1 points by 2percent (0) 6 years ago

Well, it looks the new "Buffet Rule" that had been highly touted by our Commander & Chief isn't creating the Robin Hood effect he sold the 99%.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/congress-tax-experts-say-buffett-rule-tax-on-wealthiest-would-raise-just-47b-over-11-years/2012/03/20/gIQAGxDTQS_story.html

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Of course not. "The rich" will just move their shit outside of the bounds to help to protect their money.... and it will be the "99%" that will wind up suffering for the desire to take more from those who have money.

[-] 0 points by 2percent (0) 6 years ago

Toonces, exactly what will happen. To many people with a socialist mindset believe the wealthy 2% will just keep their chit in the US. They will hire people smarter than the government bureaucrats to figure a way to get around the taxes. The best path is for the 99% to get a viable education, work hard and to use the system to increase their wealth. Scratch that idea for anyone who doesn't want to WORK.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

The way that you are phrasing this questions pits the rich and against everybody else. I think instead the solution should focus on creating more tax revenue by generating more economic activity among all the people.

The enactment of Glass Steagall, followed by a New Deal style recovery program should do the trick. This would create good jobs for the poor building infrastructure and would also create a need for more manufacturing companies, owned by the rich, paying good wages to the poor, to create the products and materials needed for infrastructure development.

So, job and business development would increase revenue in the first stage, than as the new infrastructure comes online, the increased efficiency of the economy will produce even more revenue.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Well, OWS has presented themselves as representing the 99% pitted against the rich.

So, do you believe more government spending is the answer?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

OWS wants to stop the financial crimes being committed by the super rich.

I believe the economy is like a business, in that in order for it to prosper, it requires investment. So I believe that the government investing money in the economy is the answer.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Let's talk reality here, "investing" = spending money taken from working people like you and me.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

I am talking reality. Any business will fail if nobody invests in it. The economy is the same.

The money would come from a national bank in the form of credit, at low interest rates, to be paid back over the course of about fifty years. That is, after the enactment of Glass Steagall puts our current financial system through bankruptcy reorganization.

This would create a lot of new jobs and new businesses, particularly in manufacturing, which would provide increased tax revenue without increasing the tax rate paid by either the rich or other classes.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

You cannot "invest" in the economy. The only thing that can be done is to allow people the freedom to keep as much of their money as possible so the will invest in their business and as a result of many people investing in their business, the economy will grow.

It is impossible for government to supply an economy with money because the government has no money other than what it can take from the private sector. Without a private sector, all the government has is the power of force to compell people to do what it wants them to do.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

A first class country is based on first class infrastructure. If the only investing done is people investing in their own businesses, how would we ever develop public infrastructure?

We have C and D rated infrastructure today. It is a disaster just waiting to happen.

Can you give me an example of a country that has adopted Austrian economics and has prospered?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

Not so, according to the "American School" of economics:


"It consisted of these three core policies:

  1. Protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and some include through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

  2. Government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

  3. A national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient."

This is what originally made American great.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

No. Individual freedom is what made America great.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

Investment in infrastructure is what enables individual freedom. For example, if we didn't have transportation systems, we wouldn't have the freedom to travel to far away places, rapidly and conveniently.

Can you give an example of when Austrian economics, which is what I think you are advocating, has helped a country to prosper?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

1787... No roads, yet individual freedom. Roads do not equal freedom. travel does not equal freedom. Ownership of property without confiscatory taxation equals freedom.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

Yet comparatively speaking, we have more freedom when we have roads. That is, there are degrees of freedom.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Yes, normalizing tax rates for upper earners has many benefits. First, numerous studies have shown that extreme wealth disparity erodes a society (ultimately, even the wealthy wind up worse off). Secondly, we're not talking about absurd or confiscatory levels of taxation, we're talking about the very reasonable tax rates in place during the Clinton years (where our economy performed quite well).

Obviously, this won't solve all of our problems, but it helps (we also can't underestimate the value of perceived fairness, and the social consequences of perceived unfairness).

Republicans today are supporting an arcane version of capitalism. Not since our robber barons has this view been ponied by serious policy makers. Perceptions of unfairness will always cause a backlash. The question is, how big do you want the backlash to be? If conservatives keep resisting reasonable policy changes, consistent with the values this country has followed for the better part of the last century, it will ultimately be much worse for the wealthy.

People will simply not tolerate endless amounts of wealth disparity. Ultimately, the choice becomes reasonable policy changes that instill a semblance of fairness into our system, or a slippery slope towards totalitarianism (which is something even the most staunch conservative should be repulsed by).

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

California takes almost 50% of those who earn over 200K per year. Is that fair? How much is "fair"? Can "fair" be legislated?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Funny, the top tax rate in California (on individuals) is 9.3% (but I guess in conservative fairy tale land, oops I mean conservative media, the 9 is magically transformed into a 5, the decimal point disappears, and the 3 magically turns into a zero).


Seriously conservatives, it took me all of about 2 minutes to research this question ... doing some very simple fact checking will save you a lot of embarrassment.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

I was not aware there was no federal income tax in CA. If you were to add the fed tax, what would the resulting tax burden be?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Not what you said -- you said: "California takes almost 50% of those who earn over 200K per year" (now is that fair ... boo hoo), well, California only takes 9%, and in fact, I'm also quite sure you don't understand how taxes work anyway, or how tax rates are applied. If you did, you wouldn't be whining about people who earn $200K paying 50% of their income in taxes, because they don't.

Only income ABOVE $200K is taxed at the highest rate (in other words if someone earned $201K only ONE dollar would be taxed at the highest rate, they still get all the deductions everyone else gets, and on income below that threshold they pay the next lower tax rate, and below that cut off, they pay the next lower tax rate, and so on).

There's a reason why people who earn millions every year only wind up with an effective tax rate of 15%, or some absurdly low number like that. So yeah, we need to INCREASE taxes on the 1%, reduce loopholes, etc.

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 6 years ago

144000 families pay 70% of Californias income tax burden. So in a state os 37 million, 600000 people, including chidren, pay virtually the entire income tax burden.

And the dopes on this site think the tax system needs to be more progressive?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

Me personally, I don't think taxing rich people will solve the crisis of capitalism. I do think that we in the working class have to make capitalism as untenable as possible to insure its collapse.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

What happens when capitalism collapses? What will capitalism be replaced with?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

The cooperative commonwealth

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

How does that work? How will I be paid? How do I purchase goods?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

Ultimately we are talking about a post money economy or more accurately post economic social relations, economics being the quintessential bourgeois social science. That is, what economics is really all about is how social classes relate to each other under capitalism. It will be no more useful in explaining social relations in a post capitalist world than it is in explaining social relations under feudalism or in ancient society. Of course the ultimate goal is from each according to his (or her) ability, to each according to his need. It will undoubtedly be several lifetimes before we reach that stage of human development and in the interim there will undoubtedly be money, though more and more it will be used as a book keeping mechanism rather than as an indication of personal wealth.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

So, you are talking about communism.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

In a classical sense yes, though the word is often confused with what existed in Russia and its colonies for much of the 20th Century. Indeed the Russian Revolution was truly a workers revolution, but because it became isolated it was gradually transformed into its opposite, a revolution against the working class.

The problem is isolation is key. Ours is a world revolution and it matters little if the problem is the isolation of one group of protestors from another group of protestors by the NYPD or the isolation of one national working class from other national working classes by world imperialism, the principle is the same in both cases and what the tactic is about is to divide us in order to defeat us. We have been defeated again and again, but as Rosa Luxemburg said, our victory rests on endless defeats. We learn from each defeat. The revolution is endless defeats followed by one victory.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Communism has killed more people and sentenced more people to poverty and hopelessness than any capitalism ever has.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

No actually the opposite is true. Stalin, Stalinism and the Stalinist regimes that followed Stalin's death killed more Communists, and more communists, and more socialists and more anarchists, and more radical democrats and more liberals than have all the capitalist regimes in all the long history of capitalism.

The Russian revolution, a real workers revolution, was transformed into its opposite by the mechanism of the isolation of the Russian revolution from oppositionist workers movements in the rest of the world. In principle this is no different from the NYPD attempting to divide one group of demonstrators from another. It is a difference in scale, not in principle.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Because you say it does not make it so. Stalin was a communist and ran the country as a communist country. Stalin, as a communist, was responsible for millions of deaths.

Mao was also a communist and was responsible for over 100 million deaths.

pol Pot, Castro, the list goes on. Communism always = death for those who will not comply.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

Stalin most definitely started out a Communist (he also started out a communist--case is very important in politics. For example I personally am a republican, a democrat and a socialist, though I've never been a Republican, a Democrat and only occasionally a Socialist).

Just as many labor leaders and leaders of social movements start out as idealists and are corrupted by both power and isolation from the very forces that put them in positions of power, the same thing happened to Stalin, though on a grand scale. One can legitimately question whether a labor leader who has become a tool of the mafia or of the bourgeois state is still in any meaningful sense, a labor leader. The same is true of Stalin on a grand scale. From being a Communist (and a communist) he became the greatest opponent of communism that the world has ever seen and most of the tens of millions of deaths for which he is personally responsible were of radicals of various types, including millions of Communists. Far from being a Communist, Stalin became the greatest mass murderer of communists in world history.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Communism = death

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

truth = lies

freedom = slavery

war = peace

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 6 years ago

This was exactly the rhetorical arguments against Clinton's tax increases, yet history proved he was right, and that the GOP was dragged kicking and screaming into prosperity.

Thank goodness GWB saved us from that

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

I made no argument, I asked questions.



[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

I always think honestly.

The OP? Not so much.

[-] -1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 6 years ago

I dont

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

We are not talking about taking away anyone's money.

We are talking about evening out the flow fairly.

The filthy rich will remain filthy rich - its just that the struggling will not have to struggle as hard.

The filthy rich will still get their end - Some of it up front just like now and some of it as the less rich spend in the economy and the money cycles through it's process.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

So, what problem does taking money from the "filthy rich" solve?

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

dka , shooz and the other pawns can only regurgitate their talking points. IF the govt took all the money from all of the people of the USA,................it would fund the govt. for about 26 days. It's a spending problem. obama & co want a class warfare situation. the want civil ( and violent) unrest,.after all , it's an election year and obama cannot run on his record.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Who's spending problem?

And your suggestion to take everyone's money? How does that work as a one time deal? And when you say everyone do you mean of the filthy rich? Or from everyone. Because if you mean everyone that would only be half of the current population. Take away another 49% and you would not hurt the daily intake of revenue that much.

Leave the 99% pretty much alone cancel the tax breaks loop holes and subsidies for the rich.

Bring our troops home from foreign wars started under the last administration.

And you are looking at an approach to paying off the national debt.

You are looking at making the average American more secure economically.

Toss in Regulation of Fossil Fuel speculation.

Add on expansion of green energy implementation and walla.

You are headed to a healthy and prosperous country for all. Even the stinking filthy rich.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

your reading comprehension really stinks. i said "IF" . green energy is scam,............part of the " religion" of global warming/climate change.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Does not really matter whether or not you believe in global warming.

Green technology the use of and development of will break the chains of Fossil Fuel dependance.

Lose all of that pollution = carbon, arsenic, mercury etc. etc.

Be energy independent. While cleaning up the environment.

Global warming is a fact.

Breaking away from Fossil Fuel dependence a necessity.

Lets do it and just for shits and giggles pay attention to any changes in the atmosphere. One easy one will be to see the disappearance of smog. Real safe breathable air.

Nothing to lose everything to gain.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

"man made global warning/climate change" is a scam. " green technology" is a scam. every time you breathe,...... you exhale carbon dioxide oil , coal and natural gas are THE fuels.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Re-read and try again.