0
0

Federal Surplus and Our future: Raising tax for the rich


 invite response                
2010 Nov 30, 1:09pm   12,601 views  58 comments

by Nobody   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

Some people are utterly confused about the fact that some people who are preaching higher tax for the rich are motivated by the pure hatred for the rich.

It is actually not about the hatred toward rich. It doesn't involve emotion. It is about balancing the federal deficit. Because Republicans have instituted the tax cut; our social services, education system and highway system have been steadily shrinking. Our nation had the best education system, best highway system and social services. Because we had the best education system, we were able to forester the best and brightest in our country to contribute to our society. Now because of the deficit, our school is shrinking. Only the wealthy, that is 1%, can afford to give their children the best education. Our federal deficit is robbing the future and dreams from the children whose parents can't afford to give them private education.

And for those of you who believe the raising the tax for the rich would eliminate our jobs. Well, raising or lowering tax for the rich has no bearing on companies from hiring or laying off workers. The company's decision to hire workers has always been driven by the demand for increased production of goods and services. The companies will not hire, just because the spending (paying tax) is decreased.

And in order to increase the demand for the goods and services, the money must be allocated to someone who would most likely spend it to acquire goods and services. The rich can afford to save the money which will sit in the bank only contributing 1% to 2% to the economy. The middle to lower income earners can't afford to save it, so they will spend it to purchase the services and goods. The contribution of the money is 100% to the economy. While rich folks, regardless of tax, more than likely can afford not to change their spending habit, middle to lower income earners will change their spending habit significantly even with a minute fluctuation in their take home money. The rich has accumulated their wealth in the past 10 years. It is time to give a little. Taxing the rich has profound positive effect on our economy
as well as our federal budget.

So besides the historical facts, the logic is pretty simple. If we raise the tax for the rich and give that money to our government, the government can spend most of it on something more meaningful for our future and economy. The money that government spend has more profound effect on economy. It creates jobs to provide better government services, such as education, etc. Raising the tax for the middle to lower income earners will have a negative impact on our economy, as I mentioned, because it will have severe impact on the consumption. Less consumption by the majority of the population has more impact than by 1 to 2% of the population.

Lastly, we need to have best education system to compete with countries like China, Japan or India. As long as we maintain the technology edge over these countries, we can maintain such jobs here in US. Other wise, we will even lose those high skill jobs to these countries. It is time for us to save our country. Don't let Republicans help the rich at the cost of our nation and our future. We can't afford $700 billion hole in the federal budget by giving tax break to the 1 to 2% of the population. Our past generation has paid their fair share for our future. It is time our generation pay our fair share for the future and dreams of our children.

#politics

« First        Comments 38 - 58 of 58        Search these comments

38   Clarence 13X   2010 Dec 3, 2:33pm  

Troy says

We need to focus on cleaning house here at home. Purging the system of all the skimmers. And there are MILLIONs of them, most of them making millions a year in economic rents, too, or close.

Where will our middle class jobs come from?

39   Nobody   2010 Dec 5, 2:33pm  

Troy,

You are right. Republicans' lie of "reward the rich, so we have more jobs" just does not make economical logic at all. I am not going to hire workers based on how much money I saved. I hire when I need to increase my production or output of goods and services. If I have more money, I will simply keep it in the bank as a reserve. Why should I add capital when I don't need to increase my production or output? So the money will just sit in the bank adding only 1 to 2 % to the economy.

So how do we stimulate the demand for goods and services? Do you think giving 4% tax cut to the 2% of the population will stimulate the demand? Upside of taxing 4% more to the 2% would mean less federal deficit.

It is unfortunate that the congress has given tax cuts to everyone. We had the same policy for the last 10 years, and it got us into this mess. FED is dumping dollars into the market reducing the value of our savings. It will hurt anyone who has cash. If it wasn't for Chinese, our dollar would have taken more painful hit. Could you imagine $10 for a gallon of gasoline?

Now we extend the tax cuts for everyone, prepare for the worst to come. Having cash reserve will not save you, cause the inflation is going to wipe out the value of dollar. Housing market crush was easy to predict. I knew selling all of my real estate assets was the way to protect the assets. I hope that 2 years are not going to be enough to cause massive problem.

40   Done!   2010 Dec 6, 9:06am  

"Some people are utterly confused about the fact that some people who are preaching higher tax for the rich are motivated by the pure hatred for the rich.

It is actually not about the hatred toward rich. It doesn’t involve emotion. It is about balancing the federal deficit."

Sure it is Cupcake!

You can't screw the middle class then Rape them, by passing legislation that puts them in a 1400 a month premiums. At a time when Banks wont LOAN over 60% of the population a $1400 a month mortgage, and for good GOD DAMN reason, $1400 is a lot of Phucking money, I MEAN A REALLY LOT OF MONEY it's a 300K house(Great Job Clintons!!!). Is nobody outraged by that prospect?

ALL Americans are for Taxing the rich more, don't kid your self. The problem is you can't say your trying to Tax the Rich when it's the Middle class that gets the Shaft in the AM after all of these wee hour Congressional deals that keeps putting the Middle class on the hook. And further Scott free the Rich gets.

You Democrats aren't fooling ANYONE, not even the idiots you pulled from behind their Computer monitors to Vote for Bozo Obama.

Saddest song

41   RayAmerica   2010 Dec 6, 9:53am  

Dear Mr. Nobody:

Please take note. Mr. "Hope & Change" has just announced the Bush tax cuts will be extended across the board for another two years, including the "rich." LOL

42   artistsoul   2010 Dec 6, 12:01pm  

RayAmerica says

Dear Mr. Nobody:
Please take note. Mr. “Hope & Change” has just announced the Bush tax cuts will be extended across the board for another two years, including the “rich.” LOL

I don't think Mr. Hope & Change had a choice. Americans, with their 5 second attention span, voted in Republicans b/c things hadn't magically turned around in 18 months. Abandon ship!!!!!! The Tea Party will save us. Now you understand that we voters have to get back to Keeping up with the Kardashians b/c we really don't have the time to keep up with politics. So, Ray you are in business man!! Your boys forced his hand on this. WTG.

43   bob2356   2010 Dec 6, 8:07pm  

shrekgrinch says

What? The deficit skyrocketed during the years the the Dems were in control of Congress in 2007 after falling in the years before they gained control.

The deficits decreased all through the Clinton years with a "surplus" (on paper at least) his last 3 years in office while the deficit was very high all through the Bush years, so what are you talking about? The deficit while bush was in office was the lowest in 2005,2006 with the out of control housing bubble bringing lots of tax dollars. Were you aware that there was a "small" hiccup with the economy in 2007 that had a "minor" negative effect tax revenues just as the dems took over? Perhaps you should read about it some time. Both parties are to blame for both the deficit and debt mess, don't even bother to suggest that the repubs are not equally or even more culpable.

44   marcus   2010 Dec 6, 11:03pm  

shrekgrinch says

Don’t need to look at individual bills. Just look at the total amount of spending and see how it spiked after the Dems took over. Simple.

Okay, but unlike Shrek, I won't confuse deficit with spending.

Table on left is from 07 budget when 08 numbers were only a forecast, the one on right shows what actually happened. By far most of the increase in the annual deficit in 08 was attributable to decrease in revenues, rather than increased spending.

Shrek is all bluster. But hey, I'll give him this, he is great at communicating what he wishes was true, topped off with some arrogance which I guess somehow makes it really true ?

45   marcus   2010 Dec 6, 11:06pm  

Source:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Choose years under "budget data," on left a little ways down.

46   Nobody   2010 Dec 7, 12:44am  

I am not sure where Shrekidiot is coming from. I have said over and over, we had federal surplus when Clinton was in the office. Bush and Republicans squandered all of them away. And this recession happened during Bush's administration. Is Shrekidiot really this ignorant or he is just a sad excuse for a human being?

47   RayAmerica   2010 Dec 7, 2:01am  

Nobody says

I have said over and over, we had federal surplus when Clinton was in the office. Bush and Republicans squandered all of them away.

I agree with your statement about Bush and the social moderates & Libs of the GOP that never saw a social program they didn't want to increase. As far as Clinton and his supposed "surplus." It's far more complex than that. For example; Clinton was forced into spending cuts by Gingrich & company (Congress actually controls spending, not the Executive Branch). Clinton also refinanced (little known and talked about) massive amounts of long term debt into far riskier short term, which lowered interest rate payouts. Clinton also benefitted from the end of the Cold War and was able to introduce massive cuts in the military. Clinton also shifted much of the welfare type programs on to the backs of the states. Having said all that, overall, Clinton's 8 years in office collectively INCREASED the debt by just shy of $885 billion for a yearly average deficit of $110+billion. Small potatoes when compared to Reagan ($1.7 trillion total for 8 years), G.H.W.Bush ($1.1 trillion total for 4 years), G. Bush ($5+trilion in 8 years). Obama is completely off the map. The point is: Clinton's "surplus" is a myth. Also a huge myth is that one party is more responsible than the other. BOTH parties are spending us into oblivion, while we Americans take partisan sides.

48   Done!   2010 Dec 7, 2:55am  

Nobody says

I am not sure where Shrekidiot is coming from. I have said over and over, we had federal surplus when Clinton was in the office. Bush and Republicans squandered all of them away. And this recession happened during Bush’s administration. Is Shrekidiot really this ignorant or he is just a sad excuse for a human being?

Yeah because Bill Clinton didn't raise the taxes on every one, he didn't have to. The Surplus came from the volume of Capitol gains, which Clinton did not interfere with. I'll give him that, even if he played the shell game on "Fixing" the health care system. It was more broke and corrupt after he got his Slut Paws on it. But I give him props on how he handled the economy during his Administration. Unfortunately his legacy wasn't as Rosy. Sure Bush and Repubs squandered the Surplus. But we as not even Tax payers, but as consumers and health care patients are paying more in our daily lives for Clintons follies, than we are in our tab of the over all tax bill.

49   Vicente   2010 Dec 7, 3:16am  

RayAmerica says

Also a huge myth is that one party is more responsible than the other. BOTH parties are spending us into oblivion, while we Americans take partisan sides.

Bzzzt wrong!

Tax and spend is inherently a balanced budget approach.

Borrow and spend leads to increasing deficit, which is the GOP modus operandi.

Democrats are more honest about "we want social program X, now here is the proposed tax Y to pay for it". GOP is more like a moron relative of mine that hid their bills from the spouse until it all blew up.

50   Nobody   2010 Dec 7, 3:25am  

Shrekidiot,

I wonder if you can read into the sarcasm, or you are just too stupid. Or you are just so wrong and uneducated that the sarcasm is the only thing you can come after. The oil does not have to come from China. Oil is tied to US$. If the value of dollar falls, it will increase the price of oil. I am no longer addressing this to you but to others. You have not mentioned a single shred of logic or fact to support your claim. Just an example of your ignorance and stupidity.

51   Nobody   2010 Dec 7, 3:27am  

Tenouce and Ray,

OK, I am not here to discuss the federal surplus being real or not. But based on your fact, when Clinton raised the tax, the deficit was definitely lower. If we had $110+ billion deficit a year, it seems another small increase in tax on 2% of the population help balance our federal budget. It seems like a small price to pay. My point is that we must first balance the federal budget, because of the reasons I have sighted.

We all know what happened after we had our tax reduced. For the last 10 years, our unemployment went from 4% to 10%. So we need to ask ourselves if lowering the tax really help the jobs.

Oh, let's not pin the federal deficit on Obama alone for the last 2 years. That seems unfair.

52   tatupu70   2010 Dec 7, 6:30am  

shrekgrinch says

So, either you go directly after their WEALTH (assets) or cut spending or increase the nation’s GDP growth rate (which increases the take you get from rich people). That’s the only way.

Or you do all three.

53   MattBayArea   2010 Dec 7, 10:57am  

I don't want to pick fights with individuals, it's too easy to get caught up in petty arguments - I find this discussion too interesting to risk that! I do, however, want to point out that there may be a flaw with the theory that we should blame X party (the one with the majority in congress) for all increases in spending during a given time period.

For instance, increases in spending under a democrat controlled congress while Bush was in office should be given more thought that simply saying "They were in control, spending increased during that time, therefor they are to blame". Why did spending really increase, and what was it spent on? We could argue all day about whether or not the Iraq war was right or wrong, but the FACTS are that the Bush administration pushed the war ... and the news media made anyone who argued seem like a traitor. And in the end, there were no weapons of mass destruction or links to the specified terrorist groups. Some of the 'intel' turned out to be outright fabricated (the yellow-cake evidence of a nuclear program...). So should we blame democrats for caving in and giving Bush the money he needed to fight the war?
(I would argue yes ... but a greater stake of the blame lies elsewhere imo).

54   Â¥   2010 Dec 7, 11:29am  

Nobody says

OK, I am not here to discuss the federal surplus being real or not.

Total public debt during Clinton budget years

One can see that in 2000 total government debt went down.

The debt held by the public (total public debt less SSTF etc) is the more important figure, actually, since if we only had SSTF debt we would be a happy place.

In this chart you can see that Clinton left Bush with the same amount of debt he inherited from the Reagan/Bush years. Not bad.

In real terms the debt declined 20% over the 8 budget years.

55   Â¥   2010 Dec 7, 11:32am  

shrekgrinch says

Only in the last two years, as the housing malinvestment bubble burst. Before that, unemployment had been falling (as was the deficit spending).

IT WAS THE HOUSING BUBBLE THAT WAS SUPPORTING THESE JOBS and generating the tax revenues.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HHMSDODNS

And it was the TAX CUTS that primed the housing bubble in the first place.

In a very real way the Bush tax cuts have destroyed my country, just like Japan's idiocies in the 80s and 90s have destroyed theirs.

56   marcus   2010 Dec 7, 11:29pm  

Vicente says

tax and spend is inherently a balanced budget approach.

Borrow and spend leads to increasing deficit, which is the GOP modus operandi.

I agree completely. This and other policy differences lead to the rather surprising conclusion that the "liberals" are in fact (also) the conservatives.

Not sure what the republicans are besides radical, angry, and in many cases downright unintelligent.

57   RayAmerica   2010 Dec 7, 11:41pm  

marcus says

I really do think a simple “oops” would have reflected on you much better. Like Ray (are you Ray ?),

Thanks for the compliment ... Shrek sounds incredibly smart.

58   marcus   2010 Dec 10, 9:23am  

shrekgrinch says

And regarding the spending stats you did look up — did it cover ALL spending? See, with government stats there is spending and then there is spending and then there is spending…

I posted them and gave a link. But you were too busy knowing everything to check them out.

shrekgrinch says

Sorry, but no. When your revenue/income falls and you can’t raise more but you don’t cut spending to match, then you automatically have a deficit caused by too much spending. It is as simple as that.

We are talking about spending and revenues for the same year. These are simultaneous events. But don't worry about it, you lost almost all credibility way before this.
shrekgrinch says

But it was under the Reps that such borrow and spending went down while it increased when the Dems took over in 2006, as the graph proves.

I get it (Ray) you don't take the time to even comprehend my point, let alone look at the data, which is more directly related to your assertion than the deficit bar graph you posted. I could say that I was arguing for the sake of others, but I think most paying attention probably have you on ignore already. Or, if not, soon will.

« First        Comments 38 - 58 of 58        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions