Tax the Rich...

[Hawkgirl]

Right now, the upper class of wealthy elites is doing better than ever before. The wealth gap between the wealthy and regular working people has risen to historic highs:

Those are some fancy graphs..that mean nothing in real life. The fact that you don't believe the wealthy are spending less is naivete' at the least. I can post links to a dozen articles about this fact...but you can do it yourself...

[wineslob]

The government provides services. Our economy today is more service based than it is production based. We don't have the manufacturing society that we did many decades ago.

Consumers are a vital part of the consumer economy. All businesses rely on demand, and when consumers are in weaker economic positions (as hawkgirl described herself in), they have less demand for consumer goods and services.

So, how's that working out?

Can you explain how confiscating, through multiple taxation, and giving it to "others" is "better" than a consumer economy?

How does the Government "create" jobs without taking someone else's earnings?

Exactly how would it be "bad" to reduce the Government burden (employees and departments) on the public sector?

Why is it NEVER OK to drastically CUT the Government? Why must we continue to feed the "monster in the room".

[wineslob]

Those are some fancy graphs..that mean nothing in real life. The fact that you don't believe the wealthy are spending less is naivete' at the least. I can post links to a dozen articles about this fact...but you can do it yourself...

It's just class warfare bullshit.

[Hawkgirl]

Why is it NEVER OK to drastically CUT the Government? Why must we continue to feed the "monster in the room".

Because downsizing the federal government will mean less freebies for the lazies.

[txradioguy]

It's intersting to note how we talk about wealth and money and how Communists like Wee Wee refer to wealth.

We (Conservatives) talk about wealth in the terms of keeping more of what we earn and making the system more accessable to more people to allow them to make thier own little pile of cash. The only limits are your own self drive and motivation to get out and make something of yourself to allow you to make money. You make as little or as much as you want...and keep as much of it as possible.

Communists/Socialists/Liberals/Wee Wee talk about wealth as if it's one stagnant pile of money that never expands or contracts and that to make it fair has to be "redistributed"...like icing on a cake that's been spread too high on one side and needs to be levelled out. And the only ones that can make you wealthy or give you money is the Federal Government and that you yourself have no input or say into how much you make or whether you have made too much or too little. To Libtards like Wee Wee the only arbitor of what is "fair" and when people have "enough" is the All Powerful Fed...who doesn't even see the need to play by the rules it tries to dictate to others.

I make $50K a year after taxes. I think taxes should either stay at the levels they are at or be reduced.
I'm by no means rich...yet I'm considered greedy by Libtards like Foul Owl.

Since when did keeping more of the money you make by the sweat of your brow or the shparness of your intellect become such a bad thing in this country?

[Starbuck]

A question on spending: When government spends money, where does that money go?..........
The millions of government employees get paid, poor people and sick people and unemployment people.......
Are these people not consumers? Do they not spend those dollars here in America?...........

Sometimes that happens. Sometimes not, as in the case of foreign aid. Foreign aide money is just gone. Same with interest payments. Just gone, or at least the great majority. Some of it goes to U.S. investors.

But your points above are exactly why I object to reduced defense spending. Defense spending rises above all when it comes to domestic production and domestic employment.

And some types of spending - Medicare for one - create a micro economy that is nearly entirely false simply because the government is involved. Everyone starts raising prices because it is all 'funny money' - the patient is spending money that is not his.

Much of your post is concerned with such things as stock and bond ownership. What I own, I believe, is simply none of the governments business insofar as taxes are concerned. What I earn; Ah, now that's a different tale. That, I should pay taxes on.

The difference in wealth is now being waved around as proof the the rich - whoever they are - are escaping. And the resulting class warfare, intentionally being promoted by liberals, will not be good for America, just like it has not been good for Britain.

[Wei Wu Wei]

So, how's that working out?

Can you explain how confiscating, through multiple taxation, and giving it to "others" is "better" than a consumer economy?

It's not about better or worse, the two compliment each other. When you have a consumer economy you need high demand to stimulate job growth. When working class people are just scraping by, they spend less of their money on consumer goods. Working class and poor people spend a far higher percentage of their income (because they can't afford to save, they need to buy things), so they are far more efficient consumers.

When you put money into programs that save working class people money, or give them jobs, ect. you are putting more money into the hands of the most efficient consumers in our population. Therefore, demand for goods increases.

How does the Government "create" jobs without taking someone else's earnings?

It doesn't, but the data shows that the wealthy elites are doing better today than ever before and they are not creating jobs. They have so much right now, they can spare a little without going broke. They aren't hiring people as it is and we've been using supply-side economics for a decade now.

Exactly how would it be "bad" to reduce the Government burden (employees and departments) on the public sector?

Because those are people too, people who get paychecks from their government jobs and spend that money on goods and services. If you stop 200 billion dollars worth of government jobs and projects, then all of those government workers and the contractors who support them lose their jobs, and that's 200 billion dollars that isn't going to be spent at local businesses. When the government spends, that money doesn't just vanish, it's going to people. The government is made entirely out of people who participate in our economy.

Why is it NEVER OK to drastically CUT the Government? Why must we continue to feed the "monster in the room".

Some cuts are necessary, I am not describing some extreme position here. i never said we can't cut spending. The simple fact is we can't go entirely one-sided on this, trying to cut cut cut spending and never acknowledging the fact that we've been using supply-side trickle down economics for a decade now.

[wineslob]

Econ fail.

[Wei Wu Wei]

It's intersting to note how we talk about wealth and money and how Communists like Wee Wee refer to wealth.

We (Conservatives) talk about wealth in the terms of keeping more of what we earn and making the system more accessable to more people to allow them to make thier own little pile of cash. The only limits are your own self drive and motivation to get out and make something of yourself to allow you to make money. You make as little or as much as you want...and keep as much of it as possible.

haha so you are a utopian dreamer?

If you think that we live in a perfect system where everything is totally merit-based and everyone has equal opportunity and the same rules apply to everyone, then you are the epitome of naivety.

Or maybe you think that we don't have the perfect utopian system but you know what that system is and if only BIG GOVERNMENT would go away then our utopia would exist like it did back in XXXX year?


There are the internal limitations and natural outcomes of our system, and this applies to any political or economic system. Be realistic about it.

There are different classes in society, maybe you don't want to use those words exactly for whatever reason, but it's true. That's not something we are going to get rid of but we have stacked every single chip into the ruling class's corner, they hold all the cards, they get to make the rules.

You are not stupid, you must understand that this "level playing field meritocracy" is a utopian fantasy.

Communists/Socialists/Liberals/Wee Wee talk about wealth as if it's one stagnant pile of money that never expands or contracts and that to make it fair has to be "redistributed"...like icing on a cake that's been spread too high on one side and needs to be levelled out. And the only ones that can make you wealthy or give you money is the Federal Government and that you yourself have no input or say into how much you make or whether you have made too much or too little. To Libtards like Wee Wee the only arbitor of what is "fair" and when people have "enough" is the All Powerful Fed...who doesn't even see the need to play by the rules it tries to dictate to others.

I think the first step is to take a sober look at the system and realize the game is stacked already, the rules favor some people and disfavor others, there is no equal opportunity despite a few anecdotes and "the game is rigged".

I don't fetishize the federal government like you seem to. I don't think they are the all powerful answer nor do I think they are 100% wicked witch evil who can only hurt us. There are good and bad aspects to it, it depends on who decides to use it as their tool and who views it as their enemy. Right now, the wealthy elites see the government as their tool, their arm, and they can manipulate with billions of dollars of cash. They can direct policies that benefit them. There was a time when the working class pulled the strings of the government and forced it to work for them.

There was, however, never a time when the government was totally neutral and hands-off. That is a corporate myth designed to get middle class people to take their own hands off the reigns.

I make $50K a year after taxes. I think taxes should either stay at the levels they are at or be reduced.
I'm by no means rich...yet I'm considered greedy by Libtards like Foul Owl.

Since when did keeping more of the money you make by the sweat of your brow or the shparness of your intellect become such a bad thing in this country?

I don't think you are rich either. You sound like you make a comfortable living, but you probably aren't living way high on the hog.

Now, someone who makes $900K a year after taxes, and who has an extra 6 Million in financial wealth assets, they are rich. They can handle having some higher tax rates.

[Wei Wu Wei]

I think tax cuts could actually help hiring, if they were done right, on a conditional basis. Rather than just cutting trillions of dollars of wealthy taxes, how is this for an idea:

Raise taxes 10% on the top 5% of the country. That's a big jump, oh that's going to stop them from hiring isn't it?

No, add a second part to the tax code, if these people have or start a business, and they hire a significant amount of American workers (the exact amount or percentage would have to be figured out) then they get an 8% tax cut. If they hire A LOT of workers (again, exact amounts not sure at this moment), then they get a 10% tax cut, keeping their current super low tax rates.

This means, if you a super wealthy multimillionaire and you have been taking tax cuts for the last decade and you are not hiring people, you get your taxes raised. You should pay a higher share of your income to pay public costs, as Adam Smith himself said. If, however, you use those tax cuts to hire people and spur job growth here in America rather than overseas, then you get to keep your low tax rates.


This is a true incentive for hiring, tax cuts on the condition that they do hire.