Dem Tells Radio Host You Dont Deserve To Keep All The Money You Earn

[red states rule]

bullshit. I would have you believe that wealthy people are more than happy to pay a few percentage points more in income tax if it were to help solve the deficit crisis.

Solve the debt crisis? You must be using the same math Obama used when he promised to cut the deficit in half after his first term

Virgil, you could tak the top 1% at 100% and not cover one year of Obama's deficits

You could take all the money from the top 5% and not cover the cost of one year of Obama's spending

Currently the Federal government takes around $2.3 TRILLION from the producers and corporations in America and that is not enough for you far left loons. You are demanding more!

[red states rule]

ah yes... the motorcycle crusher... the predictions of doom and gloom that allow the GOP to continue to obstruct. Hey... we get it. You guys don't give a fuck about ANYTHING other than making Obama a one term president... and if you have to totally screw over the bottom half of the socioeconomic scale to get your way, that's cool with you.

[logroller]

most intelligent economist would tell you it is both. I am all for drastic cuts in spending AND I am all for raising the marginal rate for the uber-wealthy to help to further deal with the deficit.

Most intelligent people, economists included, would refer to themselves in the plural form (if you have time for a hyphen, you have time for a 's').

Besides, the deficit problem is too much spending, not lack of revenue-- anybody who's bounced a check knows that. The rich are rich; they don't suffer because of the economy being in the shitter, and the poor suffer regardless. The problem does worsen when the economy contracts, and the costs of supporting the poor are increased; while the uber-wealthy (>1%) don't lose as much of their income due to market contraction, so they still pay a lion's share of the tax burden. The poor, who don't pay taxes, don't matter in the context of tax policy's purpose; only that they require somebody to pay them---ergo, they are a spending issue.

The problem with the current tax policy is it places a disproportionate tax burden on the upper-3rd and 4th quintiles (~55%-80%)-- these are the ones who are inhibited from the pursuit of happiness. The purpose of progressive tax is to foster the upward earning capability of taxpayers, thus future revenues. While the 55-80% take it hardest, paying undaunted taxes or losing their jobs outright* and burning through whatever investments they did have-- effectively shifting the wealth upwards. We should drop the AMT, index it to inflation at minimum, and implement a tax raise to the top for the difference-- that's fair. Spending cuts are a given necessity.

*Which is why you don't see their tax contributions increase during such periods.

[fj1200]

bullshit. I would have you believe that wealthy people are more than happy to pay a few percentage points more in income tax if it were to help solve the deficit crisis.

False premise, it wouldn't.

[fj1200]

most intelligent economist would tell you it is both. I am all for drastic cuts in spending AND I am all for raising the marginal rate for the uber-wealthy to help to further deal with the deficit.

So, that would include SS and unfunded government pensions?

let's see BOTH sides agree to them both, for the good of this country.

When was the last time government cut* spending?

*Actual cuts.

[beanerboy]

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02...f-filibusters/

[fj1200]

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02...f-filibusters/

Good, looks like a lot of filibuster's by the Dems under Bush huh? But linking a highly partisan site that decries partishanship? Questionable.

[ConHog]

Most intelligent people, economists included, would refer to themselves in the plural form (if you have time for a hyphen, you have time for a 's').

Besides, the deficit problem is too much spending, not lack of revenue-- anybody who's bounced a check knows that. The rich are rich; they don't suffer because of the economy being in the shitter, and the poor suffer regardless. The problem does worsen when the economy contracts, and the costs of supporting the poor are increased; while the uber-wealthy (>1%) don't lose as much of their income due to market contraction, so they still pay a lion's share of the tax burden. The poor, who don't pay taxes, don't matter in the context of tax policy's purpose; only that they require somebody to pay them---ergo, they are a spending issue.

The problem with the current tax policy is it places a disproportionate tax burden on the upper-3rd and 4th quintiles (~55%-80%)-- these are the ones who are inhibited from the pursuit of happiness. The purpose of progressive tax is to foster the upward earning capability of taxpayers, thus future revenues. While the 55-80% take it hardest, paying undaunted taxes or losing their jobs outright* and burning through whatever investments they did have-- effectively shifting the wealth upwards. We should drop the AMT, index it to inflation at minimum, and implement a tax raise to the top for the difference-- that's fair. Spending cuts are a given necessity.

*Which is why you don't see their tax contributions increase during such periods.

Off topic I know, but who refers to themselves in the plural? We disagree with you there Winthorp.

[logroller]

Off topic I know, but who refers to themselves in the plural? We disagree with you there Winthorp.

Pronouns, like 'we' ---I think people use that one to refer to themselves, broadly, in the plural. So you can add on some other noun to clarify. Like -- We DP members frequently argue over mundane things. Well everybody does really, but you get my point.

In the post I critiqued, unless BB was referring to the 'most intelligent economist', the plural was intended, and simply omitted. There were several modifiers used to specify what he meant to imply-- that the economists who say otherwise are not the most intelligent. Its a logic trap, if I disagree or present an economist view to the contrary, I'm automatically wrong. BB logic: FAIL.

[beanerboy]

Pronouns, like 'we' ---I think people use that one to refer to themselves, broadly, in the plural. So you can add on some other noun to clarify. Like -- We DP members frequently argue over mundane things. Well everybody does really, but you get my point.

In the post I critiqued, unless BB was referring to the 'most intelligent economist', the plural was intended, and simply omitted. There were several modifiers used to specify what he meant to imply-- that the economists who say otherwise are not the most intelligent. Its a logic trap, if I disagree or present an economist view to the contrary, I'm automatically wrong. BB logic: FAIL.

you are absolutely correct. I simply omitted the "s".

[fj1200]

you are absolutely correct. I simply omitted the "s" and any rational basis for making the comment in the first place.

I finished the sentence for ya'.

[LuvRPgrl]

I didn't meet MY wife through a bar fine, pal....

Yea, I know, the whores in mexico hang around outside the bars.

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh... I want and increase.... not to 92%, back when the days when the republican was in office and that was OK with the republicans... back when the days when that marginal tax rate still caused phenomenal job growth. I only want a paltry 3% increase to 39%, and yet, those righties like you, who, most likely don't pay anywhere NEAR that rate, are whining on behalf of the wealthy, who really could give a SHIT whether you whine for them or not.

Show me where Im supporting or opposing a marg tax rate increase, I've just been pointing out facts, only the defensive have a problem with that.

[LuvRPgrl]

Most intelligent people, economists included, would refer to themselves in the plural form (if you have time for a hyphen, you have time for a 's').

Besides, the deficit problem is too much spending, not lack of revenue-- anybody who's bounced a check knows that. The rich are rich; they don't suffer because of the economy being in the shitter, and the poor suffer regardless. The problem does worsen when the economy contracts, and the costs of supporting the poor are increased; while the uber-wealthy (>1%) don't lose as much of their income due to market contraction, so they still pay a lion's share of the tax burden. The poor, who don't pay taxes, don't matter in the context of tax policy's purpose; only that they require somebody to pay them---ergo, they are a spending issue.

The problem with the current tax policy is it places a disproportionate tax burden on the upper-3rd and 4th quintiles (~55%-80%)-- these are the ones who are inhibited from the pursuit of happiness. The purpose of progressive tax is to foster the upward earning capability of taxpayers, thus future revenues. While the 55-80% take it hardest, paying undaunted taxes or losing their jobs outright* and burning through whatever investments they did have-- effectively shifting the wealth upwards. We should drop the AMT, index it to inflation at minimum, and implement a tax raise to the top for the difference-- that's fair. Spending cuts are a given necessity.

*Which is why you don't see their tax contributions increase during such periods.

The biggest danger of people paying no income taxes at all is that they then have absolutely no concern what the feds do regarding raising tax rates, and hence what should be one of the biggest issues, becomes a non issue for them.

[ConHog]

The biggest danger of people paying no income taxes at all is that they then have absolutely no concern what the feds do regarding raising tax rates, and hence what should be one of the biggest issues, becomes a non issue for them.

Exactly, if you have no skin in the game you don't care. Which I why I say those who pay no income tax shouldn't get to vote.