Federal Surplus and Our future: Raising tax for the rich
2010 Nov 30, 1:09pm 13,824 views 58 comments
by Nobody follow (0)
Comments 1 - 11 of 58 Next » Last » Search these comments
Â¥
@
2010 Nov 30, 1:49pm
the government can spend most of it on something more meaningful for our future and economy
Debatable. I agree that we need to close the budget gap -- it's stupid borrowing money from rich people when we can just tax them instead but Government at all levels is going to be spending $6.7T next year.
Divided by $100,000 per job, that's 67 million jobs. There's only 115 million households in the US so that's more than 1 well-paying government job for every two households.
So if it's not you it's one of your neighbors! WTF!
we need to have best education system to compete with countries like China, Japan or India
Dunno about that. There's no shortage of college grads for jobs now, is there?
Troy,
Give money to the government, they will spend it. That is meaningful. Giving money to the rich has not and will not add money to the economy as much as giving money to the middle to lower income earners. That is the point. And you have already pointed that out.
There maybe no shortage of college grads. So what? It's the quality I am talking about. I have a son. The public education system is just horrible. They have no money to spend on copies, text and study kits. Are you a parent? Then you know what I am talking about.
It was our education system that created INTERNET, semiconductor and found cure for some of the disease. It was our defense system that created GPS. Without these investments by the government, things we are taking for granted have never happened. Just because there are so many college grads, it is utterly useless without a meaningful contribution to the economy and our society.
That 1% of the population who are categorized as wealthy has accumulated wealth much faster than any other decade. If they are opposing the tax hike for the rich, I just gotta say, the greed has no boundary.
Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq
@
2010 Dec 1, 2:16am
Back in my idealistic college days I hung out with a bunch of friends who lived in a commune. They belonged to a radical political party, something I'd never heard of before: The Libertarian Party. Ron Paul and the Silicon Valley tech boom made the ideology mainstream, but at the time no one in mainstream media covered these folks and the Internet was not even a word yet.
To my point: I took part in a wide ranging town hall like think tank meeting in the middle of the day with several hundreds of people who had nothing better to do in the middle of the day. We were broken into groups and each given a huge summarized copy of the Federal Budget. It spelled out in plain English how much money was collected in taxes and where the money went.
The folks at the meeting were pumped up. Young, Old, Liberals, Conservatives, radicals, moderates - everyone was ready to wack the budget and prove the other side wrong.
The conclusion however, surprised many. The vast bulk of the tax breaks and tax benefits went to one group: The Middle Class. To balance the budget, you needed to either grow tax receipts from this group or lessen benefits received by this group. In other words - political suicide.
Until this reality is addressed, our nation will have debt.
And since the upper 10% provide 70% of federal income tax revenues, it is totally stupid to screw with that. This is backed by actual history both recent and going back for like…uh, forever. New York raised income taxes on the rich and instead of getting the $4 billion in additional revenues, they saw a shortfall. Maryland and New Jersey also did similar things and saw the same result.
Back in the 50s, when the highest tax bracket was 91%, the top 10% only provided for 9% of federal income tax revenues. That means that the middle class carried the federal tax burden mostly. You want to go back to that?
You mean go back to when the middle class had most of the money, when ceo's made 40 times the average workers wage not 400, when incomes were a lot more equitably distributed. Which is why the top 10% only provided 9% of federal tax revenues? Yes that would certainly be a terrible thing to go back to. Why don't you post any articles on income distributions since the 50's. The rich have gotten a lot richer so they pay a higher percentage of the taxes.
EightBall
@
2010 Dec 1, 3:07am
It was our education system that created INTERNET
I thought Al Gore invented the internet? Oh wait, most sane people know that was DARPA...not the education system...
Pumping more money into the screwed up public education system we have hasn't worked yet - perhaps we need to pay the kids to go to school? How much is enough? If they get an A it's $50? They can learn how to be politicians and union thugs (not union members...their leadership) and kick back 20% to the teachers for higher grades. The teachers can hire the bullies to break the knee caps of those that won't pay up. The bullies can band together and go on strike for more twinkies and flavored condoms.
Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq
@
2010 Dec 1, 3:23am
Pumping more money into the screwed up public education system we have hasn’t worked yet - perhaps we need to pay the kids to go to school?
The exact same argument: Pumping more money into the military has not made us free or secure. The United States continues to be attacked, and Americans continue to die. Therefor we should either stop spending money on the military or get rid of it.
Not sure what Eightball thinks is a workable alternative to public education? Should we roll back the clock and send our young into textile factories in China? Or we could all just home-school all our kids, because nothing builds the fabric of society like loyalty to a religion over loyalty to the state. (And we know how much time working moms have on their hands). Then again, we could turn everything over to the capitalist system, and educate our young in private schools called Madrasses funded by the wealthy Saudis. Cuz we know the Christians are already tapped out with all the current private schools.
Â¥
@
2010 Dec 1, 3:47am
Oh wait, most sane people know that was DARPA…not the education system…
Tell it to my CS 112 professor.
semi-interesting trivia. Two guys in that class that usually sat behind me ended up founding Blizzard together.
EightBall
@
2010 Dec 1, 5:37am
Not sure what Eightball thinks is a workable alternative to public education?
I'm not saying do away with public education - I'm just saying that throwing money into a broken system isn't the answer. Money doesn't solve all problems.
The exact same argument: Pumping more money into the military has not made us free or secure.
Eh, well, I can see it both ways - we certainly do a lot of dumb things with our money and a bloated military designed to fight the USSR is one of them. I don't think dumping the entire military is a smart move, though.
Tell it to my CS 112 professor.
Wow. Add him to the list of those claiming they invented the internet.
Â¥
@
2010 Dec 1, 10:06am
Wow. Add him to the list of those claiming they invented the internet.
um, the first BBN switch for the ARPANET was sent to and installed at Boelter Hall at UCLA. SRI got the second. UCSB and Utah were the 3rd and 4th.
Dr Kleinrock did in fact write the definitive thesis on packet switching -- and may I say his Queueing Theory class was fucking awesome. I took it in 1991 -- at the peak of my mental powers, such as they were -- and for a brief moment I could see the beauty of math like never before -- Poisson arrivals and how random events could stack up into normal distributions, rigorous shit like that. One of those classes where now I just think, "damn I took that???"
We can't even agree that investing into education could lead to the development of better technology by bickering over the petty little detail. There is no doubt that directly or indirectly our education system has been good to our economy and technology.
Shrekidiot, don't complicate the simple fact of balancing the deficit vs. what is good for our economy. It is not about our emotion or hatred. You need to get the facts straight. And read what I wrote. Also, when you claim that we had failure by increasing the tax, define the detail and fact. I care most about the logic and facts. I don't care about your logic which does not make sense to anyone here or me at all.
So are you saying don't tax the wealthy and keep our federal deficit increasing indefinitely? And we should just keep watching our country downside education system, highway, social service etc? That is sad you feel that way. I have a little bit of patriotism left in me, and I don't mind 4% tax increase.
Or you are writing just to argue? I am what Obama calls higher income earner. I don't mind our government taking mere 4% more from my pay check. My spending habit will not change as much. I may only save a little less each year. And when I retire, I can still retire comfortably.
I think it is problematic when poor is getting poorer and rich getting richer. I guess you don't see that either. I have paid my dues and feel I am entitled to my pay. But I am also appreciative of our government in letting me go to one of the best schools and enabled me to carry out interesting research. And my parents were poor. Without government funding, none of that would ever happened. Hey besides, the 4% increase is tax deductible. It is like donation. I reduced my donation after the donation is no longer tax deductible. So I am back to square one.
RayAmerica
@
2010 Dec 1, 11:28am
Dear Mr. Nobody:
As a "higher income earner," here's your chance to be a Mr. Somebody. Go to this site and give until it hurts. You'll be helping enact that tax policy you favor (as a "higher income earner") voluntarily. Why wait for the government to raise taxes? Do it yourself to yourself:
Comments 1 - 11 of 58 Next » Last » Search these comments
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